q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
301
| selftext
stringlengths 0
39.2k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 3
values | url
stringlengths 4
132
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
y981o
|
In a hot desert how should a canteen of water be rationed?
|
Often times in books and movies when a character is going through a hot desert they poor water on their head, drink it all at once, or barely drink it at all. If you're ever stranded in a hot desert and only have a canteen or two of water, how exactly is the best way to ration it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/y981o/in_a_hot_desert_how_should_a_canteen_of_water_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5tgoha"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"I'd say that pouring it over your head is just stupid if dehydration is a fear. Also, I found this:\n\n > The current rule for water use is “Ration sweat, not water.” Water rationing is an antiquated method for land travel that probably has its origins back to sailors lost at sea. While floating about on a lifeboat with little to do but lay around, water needs are less if shade is available. The infantry, however, once practiced water rationing, telling their troops when they could drink and how much. This idea still persists with some older veterans, and is responsible for many cases of dehydration. Two survival training films from the Vietnam era for aviators and pilots are the first military references I know of to caution against water rationing in survival scenarios. Desert Survival, 3593 DN (U.S. Navy) and Sun, Sand and Survival, T.F. 1-4991 (U.S. Air Force) are both available on one videotape called Desert Survival Skills listed in the References. The advice in current military manuals is contradictory, advising against rationing while falling back on the half-century old cookie cutter admonitions to sip water or only wet the lips.\n\n > The fact is, you cannot ration water in your canteen any more than you can ration gas in a car’s tank. If you have a quarter tank of gas and sixty miles to go to get to the next station, giving the car “a few sips” cannot do it. Instead, you use the available gasoline conservatively by driving slower, coasting downhill, and avoiding rapid acceleration. It is the same way with the body. By waiting until cooler times to walk and limiting physical activity (such as not digging several holes for stills) the available water is used wisely. \nIt is important to drink enough to keep the brain hydrated. The recommended sipping and wetting the lips is a misuse of available water. Such rationing causes the less important cells of the body to pirate the water away from the brain, which will result in irrational decisions and increased body temperature. \n\n > Recently, a European tourist died in the Australian outback of dehydration with one and two thirds liters left in her water bottles, and many similar cases from rationing are on record. It is the water in your stomach that saves you, not the water in the canteen. Yet the manuals confuse the issue. Quoting the 1970 Army manual, page 226: “Don’t gulp your water. Drink in small sips. Use water to only to moisten your lips if the supply is critical.” The well known, but erroneous, technique of placing a pebble under the tongue to allay thirst is described, even though that thirst is telling you to water your brain. Ironically, the same page continues, “Rationing yourself to 1 or 2 quarts of water a day is inviting disaster (at high temperatures) as such small amounts do not prevent dehydration. Ration sweat, not water.”\n\nSo just drink when your thirsty, try not to over exert yourself and do your best to find shade for the middle of the day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3wk5o2
|
Why is the Arab slave trade left out of textbooks and not thought in American schools?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3wk5o2/why_is_the_arab_slave_trade_left_out_of_textbooks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxwswjl",
"cxwuopb",
"cxwwgxx"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Because it's natural for history lessons taught at schools to concentrate on things that are easier for the students to relate to. The US is involved in the Atlantic slave trade; the Arab one, not so much (if at all).\n\nOn the same token, in my country's (Malaysia) high school history syllabus, we are taught about the Japanese occupation of Malaya. European battles and events? Not so much. ",
"I don't think much Arab history is taught in American schools period. Not even the rise of Mohamed. Not even the Islamic reign in Spain, even though the Middle Ages is usually roughly covered. \n\nAlthough important, the Arab slave trade is relatively obscure compared to the vast arena of topics that could be but aren't covered in US history courses. \n",
"Though I am not aware of any literature on this specific question, I guess my initial response is what sort of level or class seems to be missing this information? I would be sad to see it missing from a World History class but would be completely unsurprised to see it missing from a US History course.\n\nFor my part I deal mostly in World History at the University level and the long history of African slave trading is taught-- as understanding some of the antecedents to the Atlantic Slave Trade are important for understanding what made it so different in times of size/scale.\n\nI find, not that students are unaware of an Arab component, which of course most are, but that many American students are simply unaware that the Atlantic slave trade was in fact a much bigger and broader phenomena than just the Southern United States. Perhaps this isn't surprising considering most have only come across the topic in relation to United States history courses or cultural memory objects (films, reenactments, memorials, etc) of the US Civil War."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
jq8k1
|
If light is affected by gravity then would the stars position in the nights sky be different from what we perceive?
|
In a more wordy explanation of my question, would the fact that light can be bent by gravitational forces have an effect on how we perceive the cosmos. For instance if flying on a hypothetical straight line to another star, would you have to alter your course after a period of time to account for the effects of gravity on the image of the star as it was seen from earth?
Can't find a clearer way to word myself but I can draw a picture if that would help.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jq8k1/if_light_is_affected_by_gravity_then_would_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2e8stg",
"c2e8w2j",
"c2e8stg",
"c2e8w2j"
],
"score": [
10,
9,
10,
9
],
"text": [
"Oh, yes! _URL_0_",
"Sure, there are a few ways in which this can happen.\n\nFor objects like stars which are quite nearby to Earth, you'll really only see effects if there's a particularly strong source of gravity in the way. One obvious possibility is the Sun; in fact, the bending of starlight around the Sun was the first prediction of general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) to be tested by experiment. The astronomer Arthur Eddington observed stars around the Sun during a solar eclipse and found that they were ever so slightly displaced from where they were when in the sky at night. The gravity of the Sun bent the starlight during the eclipse.\n\nAnother interesting use of gravitational lensing on nearby stars is detecting planets by microlensing. If one star happens to pass behind another star with a planet around it, the gravity from both the star and the planet will cause brief fluctuations in the light from the background star. This method of detecting extrasolar planets is one of the most sensitive to low-mass planets, but it has the downsides that it relies on the luck of a star passing right behind the star with its planet, and that it's a one-time event, leaving us unable to do much follow-up work.\n\nWith more distant objects like quasars, you have the possibility that these objects have passed by objects much more massive than stars, like entire clusters of galaxies. These can create dramatic images such as Einstein rings (see tel's post), or even multiple images of the same object.",
"Oh, yes! _URL_0_",
"Sure, there are a few ways in which this can happen.\n\nFor objects like stars which are quite nearby to Earth, you'll really only see effects if there's a particularly strong source of gravity in the way. One obvious possibility is the Sun; in fact, the bending of starlight around the Sun was the first prediction of general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) to be tested by experiment. The astronomer Arthur Eddington observed stars around the Sun during a solar eclipse and found that they were ever so slightly displaced from where they were when in the sky at night. The gravity of the Sun bent the starlight during the eclipse.\n\nAnother interesting use of gravitational lensing on nearby stars is detecting planets by microlensing. If one star happens to pass behind another star with a planet around it, the gravity from both the star and the planet will cause brief fluctuations in the light from the background star. This method of detecting extrasolar planets is one of the most sensitive to low-mass planets, but it has the downsides that it relies on the luck of a star passing right behind the star with its planet, and that it's a one-time event, leaving us unable to do much follow-up work.\n\nWith more distant objects like quasars, you have the possibility that these objects have passed by objects much more massive than stars, like entire clusters of galaxies. These can create dramatic images such as Einstein rings (see tel's post), or even multiple images of the same object."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring"
],
[]
] |
|
1fcsas
|
when i stand far away from one person clapping i can't hear it, at the same distance i can hear 100 people clapping. why?
|
I was trying to explain the phenomenon to myself and although I know it to be true, I actually have no idea on a molecular level why this would be.
Each individual clap has the same amplitude, why together are they louder?
Eli5 because I have very poor understanding of physics.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fcsas/eli5_when_i_stand_far_away_from_one_person/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca9038x",
"ca93157"
],
"score": [
8,
11
],
"text": [
"While it is not quite this simple in this case, the wave amplitudes basically add. Actually there will be some canceling, but there will be a tremendous amount of amplitude adding, and that amplitude is the loudness you hear.",
"There are a couple concepts you need to understand to make this a bit easier.\n\n1. Like you said, sound is basically particles vibrating. However, sound is a wave - that is, it's energy that effectively radiates out from a source as ripples radiate from a thrown rock. As the energy passes particles, it causes them to vibrate, which causes the sound you actually hear.\n2. Waves look like [this](_URL_1_). \n3. Loudness of sound is basically the intensity of the vibration. This can be calculated using the formula energy/(time*area). Thus, more energy at any given point would cause an increase in loudness, given the time and area remain the same.\n\nOkay. Given one source - the one person clapping - sound would look like [this](_URL_2_). Add another source, and the waves will start to interfere with each other, creating something that would look like [this](_URL_0_) (forgive the shitty drawing, I'm eating lunch). \n\nAs you can see, there are places where the waves of energy overlap. Now, at some points, it will be the troughs - the low points of the wave - that overlap. This causes \"destructive interference\", which will create points where it will be hard to hear the claps - because there will be very little energy, now, because you're effectively adding energy, so when you plug into the energy/(time\\*area) equation, you get something that translates to being inaudible. Where crests are interfering, however, you get something called \"constructive interference.\" This is just adding the waves, as /u/RandomExcess said. Therefore, the result of the energy/(time\\*area) will be literally double what it would be with just one source - so it's double the loudness.\n\nNow, take this phenomenon and multiply it by 100 (or 50, if you're starting from the 2-source example). All of a sudden, you have points where the amount the particles vibrate is 100 times more intense than it would be from one source. This will translate to your ear as being much louder. \n\nI hope that helped! If you have any questions, feel free to ask, but I am working with a high-school level understanding (as in I just took a final two days ago), so if you think something may be off, let me know and I'll look into it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/okyIcVs",
"http://seagrant.uaf.edu/marine-ed/curriculum/images/stories/grade7/wave.jpg",
"http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/u11l2b3.gif"
]
] |
|
9ew60f
|
How is louder sound different from soft sound?
|
Generally we say sound travels at the same speed in the air, regardless of amplitude.
But in order for us to hear loud sounds, our eardrums must be pushed stronger. This, I suspect, is achieved by air molecules hitting the eardrums harder, which itself is achieved by having the air molecules move faster prior to collision.
Does this increase in volume not affect the speed of sound?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9ew60f/how_is_louder_sound_different_from_soft_sound/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5sqkig",
"e5sr1js"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Sound is a wave, specifically peaks and valleys of alternating pressure. The waves travel at the same speed regardless of volume, that instead depends on the medium. Higher volume means those peaks have a higher pressure.",
" > This, I suspect, is achieved by air molecules hitting the eardrums harder, which itself is achieved by having the air molecules move faster prior to collision.\n\nIt's actually because there are more molecules hitting the eardrum. Or to put it another way, there is a larger difference between the highest and lowest air density and pressure, and the eardrum moves farther in response to the pressure difference. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
rkp51
|
why everybody hates
hipsters?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rkp51/eli5_why_everybody_hates_hipsters/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c46l7cq",
"c46lji0",
"c46lk9a",
"c46lprl",
"c46lpuc",
"c46lqvr",
"c46lral",
"c46lt3z",
"c46ltz5",
"c46ltzw",
"c46lu7a",
"c46luqh",
"c46lvv2",
"c46lwbc",
"c46lxfc",
"c46lz51",
"c46m06z",
"c46m1fh",
"c46m3qv",
"c46m4oe",
"c46m813",
"c46m9vj",
"c46mapq",
"c46mca8",
"c46md1y",
"c46mhfg",
"c46mhu1",
"c46mhzi",
"c46mk6x",
"c46mk8f",
"c46mlkb",
"c46mlke",
"c46momx",
"c46my09",
"c46nefu",
"c46nhst",
"c46ni4n",
"c46nl0g",
"c46nnms",
"c46nyuc",
"c46o4qg",
"c46obpd",
"c46oghy",
"c46ojn0",
"c46orf7",
"c46p1uw",
"c46p8i9",
"c46pe05",
"c46phxs",
"c46pty4",
"c46qb1g",
"c46qgi6",
"c46qnfu",
"c46qsfq",
"c46rabs",
"c46ruj5",
"c46ruya",
"c46rzue",
"c46s0k0",
"c46s6km",
"c46smjg",
"c46so8r",
"c46swvo",
"c46ti46",
"c46tq1v"
],
"score": [
35,
153,
48,
5,
5,
13,
9,
4,
70,
2,
2,
2,
529,
2,
4,
2,
48,
2,
17,
5,
6,
2,
5,
13,
2,
2,
4,
26,
3,
2,
14,
4,
2,
10,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most hipsters don't like the word hipster. It is a sort of counter-culture, individualistic type of mentality, so the thought of thousands of people just like them doesn't sit well with them. None of them want to be called hipster because they don't want to be classified like that. They call other people hipsters as a sort of diss so they can feel better about themselves. Even hipsters hate hipsters, so of course everyone else does too.",
"People dislike those who are hypocritical to the point of trying to be individual and different, while conforming to a rather large subculture at the same time. Example - Hipsters buy Apple products to be 'different', yet they all have the same stuff. They all drink 'rare' coffees, yet all the blends they drink are the same. They'll say they hate corporate culture, but will buy Apple products and drink Starbucks coffee and not complain.",
"Judging by what reddit deems 'hipster' I'd say it's because they hate what they don't understand.",
"Because in an attempt to be non-conformist, they have all conformed to the idea that they are different. So the drink bad beer because it's so lame. They ride bikes because they are different. \n\nThey are not different, and if me and all of my friends do the exact same thing we are a clique, not a group of individuals. ",
"[Short, not safe for five-year-olds](_URL_0_) explanation. (YouTube, 2:43\")\n\nAlso: epilepsy warning.",
"They don't. Reddit is an insular community built of generally similar people. To Reddit, a 'hipster' is anyone they are not, and ipso facto holds a grudge against the other. ",
"I got Beats headphones as a gift. Now fucking everybody has them. Naturally I don't use mine anymore. ",
"people mostly hate the elitist stereotype connected to hipsters. it's similar to all those people posting \"first!\" in comments everywhere, only hipsters would be the ones that would say \"zero!\" or \"meh, i've seen that before it got posted here. lame!\". \n\nby chance everyone can feel like a hipster. if you like some lesser known band, and it suddenly gains in popularity you can brag that you knew it before it became mainstream (or just keep it to yourself, and feel happy about their success). a pure hipster thinks that when something becomes mainstream it automatically becomes garbage, and moves on to something new and obscure. all this in order for that moment of condescendence when the given band is mentioned.",
"the thing is, Hipster basically means a quirky person under 30 so the definition means Jack shit, and in real life they are shockingly normal people trying to be interesting somehow. ",
"Because they are annoying and trying to hard to be unique and not to fit it. Instead of actually being their self, they are more concerned with not being like you and I.",
"They are an exclusive group whose merit depends entirely on being the first to embrace new or overlooked trends in music fashion and beverages. Anyone who \"comes to the party late\" is chastised for not being there when it originated and those who were, are imbued with an smug sense of undeserved accomplishment.",
"Cuz its the hip thing to do.....::thumbs up and a wink::",
"\"Hipster\" is one of the most overused and poorly defined terms on the internet today. I think the hatred towards them stems from a certain attitude of snobbery (the \"oh you like mainstream stuff?\" hipster archetype), which is of course an intolerable attitude for a person to have, but the hatred has spread to ANYONE that subscribes to a particular fashion or listens to a particular kind of music. \n\nThe word \"hipster\" is just another in a line of umbrella terms people use to hate on a particular kind of person. It's just trendy right now, like \"emo\" or \"scene\" was a few years ago.",
"I think it is like anything else, we just hate the extremes. A couple of my closest friends could be considered hipsterish, but they aren't throwing it in peoples faces and proclaiming what a rare snowflake they are. So long as they just act like normal people most of the time and don't tell us how much better they are then us then I'm sure most of us don't really have a problem with them. At least I dont.",
"My contempt was inspired by a quote once:\n\"it's not about being different, it's about making a difference.\" If I see a hipster who tries really hard to look unique, I think he's actually very insecure and the furthest thing from a true leader. Dude, your appearance defines you? C'mon!",
"I don't hate hipsters, what I hate is now being apparently unable to say \"I liked X before Y\", regardless of how true it may be.",
"Hating hipsters is hip.",
"[](/b09) Because they think they're better than someone else because \"you conform to society\", when they do the exact same thing.\n\nAnd people don't generally *hate* hipsters, they just make fun of them.",
"In the 90's I was heavily into punk, ska / punk, swing, stuff like that.\n\nI knew a lot of goth kids, skaters, kids who were heavily into rock, thrash etc just a lot of subcultures.\n\nOne thing that unites those subcultures is that they're generally outcast by society.\n\nWeirdly, those subcultures are split into 2 types of people though.. the people that just love punk or whatever and are just really into it and dress that way and are being themselves and people that seem to be into it because it's cool to not be mainstream, this second group of people are always quite.. like.. anti mainstream stuff.. I never gave 2 fucks about mainstream stuff and accepted that occasionally there were pop songs that were decent and that there were decent people that loved pop music.\n\nscenesters and then later when they evolved into hipsters love not being mainstream. that's what it's all about to them, the second something becomes mainstream they've lost interest.. they also get quite anti mainstream.. which is all kinds of fucked up to me because like I said, a uniting concept in those subcultures is that mainstream society by and large think that you have issues for being into that kind of thing.. this to me is just escalated by scene kids that take the 'fuck me? well fuck you and everything you like' approach.\n\nThere's great punk music, there's great pop music, there's great country music.. hell.. there's just plain great music out there.. same with movies.. same with clothes.. whatever.. my taste in stuff is not superior to your taste in stuff just because it's my taste.. but the hipsters out there have it in their heads that it is.",
"I don't know. It's so mainstream to hate hipsters.",
"Here's an [interesting article](_URL_0_) that appeared in Adbusters a few years back. \n\nBut the short answer, as many others have pointed out, is that it's just a current trend to hate on, like emo, etc. ",
"Because it's cool",
"the fact that they think that they're better than everybody else. this applies to any stereotype which involves snobbery (hipsters, douchebags, frat boys etc.) ",
"I hate hipsters because I'm not cool enough to be one.",
"You know your classmate Bobby. Yeah the one who doesn't like Power Rangers Yugi-Oh, he likes reruns of My Little Pony. Well you know how kids make fun of him for liking something different from them. \n\nWell when Bobby grows up, and he's going to keep liking things you think are weird or \"goofy.\" And that's ok, but Bobby may be mad from all the years of being teased and picked on for what he likes, and now he picks on and teases others for what they like. \n\nYeah, I know, it's sort of fair that Bobby gets back at us. But the thing is, most of us grow up and realize that all that teasing and being mean because people don't like the same things is a silly way to act. And we get mad when people start doing it when they get older, because we expect them to have grown up too. \n\nBut Bobby's feelings are still hurt after all those years and he still wants to get back at all those \"mean\" kids, so some people hate Bobby for it, when what they should do is tell Bobby, that they're glad he likes his music so much and just ignore his attitude and eventually Bobby will grow up too.\n\nNow, you see why I give you a time out when you make fun of someone for liking something different.",
"I honestly haven't seen all that much hatred towards them. Humor and making fun of them? Yes. Overused meme? Yes. Hatred? Not so much.",
"Hipsters are bad, mkay? They're bad. Don't be a Hipster kids, cuz...they're bad.\n\n-Mr. Mackey",
"I'll re-post some copypasta that I found a while ago, don't know the original source, but it should be interesting in this thread:\n > “Hipster” is a term co-opted for use as a meaningless pejorative in order to vaguely call someone else’s authenticity into question and, by extension, claim authenticity for yourself. It serves no conversational function and imparts no information, save for indicating the opinions and preferences of the speaker. Meanwhile, a market myth has sprung up around the term, as well as a cultural bogeyman consisting of elusive white 20-somethings who wear certain clothes (but no one will agree on what), listen to certain music (no one can agree on this either), and act a certain way (you’ve probably sensed the pattern on your own). Suffice it to say, no one self-identifies as a hipster; the term is always applied to an Other, to separate the authentic Us from the inauthentic, “ironic” Them. You can’t define what “that kind of behavior or fashion or lifestyle” actually is, nor will you ever be able to. That’s because you don’t use “hipster” to describe an actual group of people, but to describe a fictional stereotype that is an outlet for literally anything that annoys you. The twist, of course, is that if it weren’t for your own insecurities, nothing that a “hipster” could do or wear would ever affect you emotionally. But you are insecure about your own authenticity - “Do I wear what I wear because I want to? Do I listen to my music because I truly like it? I’m certainly not like those filthy hipsters!” - so you project those feelings onto others.",
"I admit to being a hipster in my style, therefor I could not possibly be a hipster. Divide by zero.",
"Because the 'Hip-Hoppers' are getting old and dying out but they won't go down without a fight so they'll make fun of the new generation.",
"Pretentious\n\npre·ten·tious/priˈtenCHəs/\n\nAdjective:\t\nAttempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.",
"Because Reddit is a bunch of anti social losers who hate anything that makes them seem more out of sync with modern day culture or more dorkish then they are.",
"ITT: Closet hipsters trying to defend themselves.",
"You see, son, most Redditors are insecure. When someone is insecure, they attack everyone around them. They don't have the self confidence to lift themselves up, so they bring everyone down around them so that they can feel better about themselves. \n\nRight now, an easy way to do that is to call someone a hipster. The term's been around for about a century, but is popular again today. The insecure folks will say \"hipster\" like it's a bad word so that they can tear down the people around them. Everyone gets called a hipster if they are part of the same generation as most redditors. If they are well dressed, they are a hipster. If they look homeless, they are a hipster. If they have a smart phone, they are a hipster. If they are popular, they are a hipster. If they are into something obscure, and therefore not popular, they are a hipster. If they like jazz or classical, they are a hipster for liking something uncool. If they are into pop music, they are a hipster for liking something uncool. If they are into trendy music, they are a hipster for liking something cool.\n\nIt all comes back to the fact that this generation doesn't feel very good about themselves, and since they don't know how to fix that, they pull down the confidence of others.",
"I was questioning why everyone hated hipsters before it was cool",
"People don't hate hipsters, they hate arrogance.",
"I think the show [Portlandia on IFC](_URL_0_) covers it well enough.\n\nIt's okay to like nice things, unique things, or different things from everyone else, but acting like you're better than everyone else because you have found those \"unique little flower\" things before they find mainstream acceptance makes the \"hipster\" person intolerable.\n\nRather than pretentiously portray your (a hipster) experiences as what makes you special, go through a process of defining and promoting, rather than consuming and the \"hipster\" label is far less applicable.\n\nE.g. A person who made 'zines versus someone who simply reads them.",
"By my definition, a 'Hipster' is someone who likes something purely because it's cool. They subscribe to this ideal publicly (fashion, etc) rather than personally, giving the impression that they enjoy the counter culture image rather than the culture itself. Therefore, Hipsters are seen as fake and narcissist.\n\nReddit's definition of a hipster is purely on appearance. There is difference between a chillwave musician who dresses like a chillwave musician and a kid a school who used to like Rhianna who now dresses like a chillwave musician. \n\n\n",
"\"Hipsters\" are today's **fashion victims.**\n\nAnd \"fashion victims\" have always been disliked.\n\n*(note: by \"fashion\", I do not simply mean clothing, but whatever it is that is \"fashionable.\")*",
"because they're not them and neither are they",
"The term [hipster](_URL_0_) is about 70 years old. It was seemingly rather straightforward in its original definition. Now everybody attaches their own revised, modern definition to it and bickers about differing technicalities that they or someone else imposed on an existing word to disprove someone else.\n\n",
"For lots of reasons you've probably never heard of.",
"Because Emo's are gone...",
"[Here's a good idea why.](_URL_0_)",
"[This](_URL_0_) should give you an idea.",
"I don't \"hate\" them, I just have no respect for them. When I think of hipsters, the key element for me is they tend to judge the merit of anything based on what others think of it. So they don't even have to listen to a band to determine if they like it. If the right sort of people like it, it's good. If the wrong sort of people like it, it's not good. But they can never explain why something is good or bad in terms that I care about.",
"Insecurity.\n\nSecure people don't give a fuck what other people do with their lives.",
"Hipsters are hated for several reasons. They pride themselves on being innovative when, in fact, they are simply regurgitating past styles. They wear clothes that were in fashion decades ago, perhaps to show that they are so fashion daring that they will wear clothes their grandparents wore.\n\nWhile they may consider themselves new and fresh because of this, in fact they are doing exactly what their parents did. If you watch news footage or documentaries from the sixties and seventies. You will see people that dress and act exactly as they did. If you take the hipster of today and put them next to the beatnik of the 40s and 50s, as well as the burnouts of the 60s and 70s, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. \n\nThe same could be said of their music tastes- they are all rehashed folk or punk rock done badly. Don't tell that to hipsters though. It is *indie* to them. They have little or no knowledge of the people their favorite bands are influenced by. \n\nSince they pride themselves on innovation, but are unaware of the orgins of their own fashions, it makes them look foolish and no one respects them. \n\nFrom my own experience, I have known a number of hipsters that talk a big game but ultimately do nothing. They want to act concerned without putting in the effort. Many of them are interested in many causes but their involvement extends to talking about it on Facebook and that's it. Arty, creative people that they like to think of themselves as should be more involved in their community and world. The hipsters I have known are nothing but drug addicts and alcoholics. Alcoholism is rampant in the hipster community, despite their advanced educations. \n\nLastly, despite their need to be seen as different and wild, they all end up as married yuppies. Unfortunately, they don't move to the suburbs but stay in the cities and complain about their neighbors playing music too loud, though they were guilty of that exact thing just a few short years ago. \n\n",
"I'm going to explain how I and people I know use it. \n\nImagine you have a passion for rock climbing, and you move to a new area that doesn't seem to have a lot of enthusiasts like yourself. Now you still go rock climbing whenever you can but it kinda sucks that you go by yourself.\n\nImagine one day you spot someone else sporting rock climbing gear and you get excited and approach them, you strike up a conversation and it *appears* they go rock climbing but the more you talk to them the more you realize they've never gone and just find it interesting; but you don't give up hope!\n\nYou convince them to go rock climbing with you and the day arrives, the two of you hop in a car and you go rock climbing, within minutes your new rock climbing buddy is struggling and quickly gives up telling you this is much harder then they thought and are going to go do something else; literally leaving you hanging.\n\nNow take this encounter and repeat it a few times in other hobbies and you'll start to see a pattern, people take a passing interest in something and that's about as far as it ever goes. Perhaps you go to a big rock climbing meetup and find that a good chunk of the attendees are like this causing the meetup to be failure as none of them *really* want to go climbing with you.\n\n**tl;dr** hipster interests are skin deep.",
"I hated hipsters before it was cool...\n\nWait... DAMNIT",
"The hipster mentality (as defined by most) is to favor something not for its intrinsic value but for image it confers upon a person. They're hypocrites because they follow trends as closely as the \"mainstream\" people, as well as claim to eschew conformity when they clearly practice it.",
"Because they're arrogant",
"The way I explain it: hipsters are not people that listen to indie, buy macs, drink coffee, etc. All kinds of people do that.\n\n**Hipsters are people who do things, and then look down on other people because they do not do those things.**",
"because you act like you know. but you don't know shit",
"It's the same thing as hating emos or scene people. In fact, many people who were previously 'emo' are now hipsters based on how they dress themselves and act. They're really neither. What they are is a sheep.\n\nSpecifics aside, it all boils down to one thing: sheeple (sheep people).\n\nFor me at least, it's about hating people who shift and alter themselves entirely to whatever is trendy while maintaining no sense of individuality. That is what most hipsters of today are. The fact that the hivemind is leeching off of that type of style and personality currently means nothing as that will always change. 'Hipster', 'emo', 'scene', 'punk' or even 'beatnik'. It all means the same thing. People with no identities trying to stand out by conforming.\n\nIt's the product of a society conditioned to avoid free thought and personal identity and it's a dying mentality as more people develop their sense of individuality and break free from the social machine.",
"I happen to live in the Mission district of SF. Probably one of the most \"hipsterfied\" places in America.. just like Williamsburg, NYC or Silverlake in LA. \n\nThere is a huge difference between the hipsters and people who just like cool stuff. Pretentious people come from all types of life and that's really what \"everyone\" is hating on.",
"So when you are 5 and some kid in your grade gets a bike, and is like CHECK OUT MY BIKE NOONE ELSE HAS ONE, but right down the road someone else has that bike. In fact millions of people have the bike, but all the kids who have it, think they are special. Thats why people hate fucking hipsters.",
"I don't know the difference between a hippy and a hipster but i do know i like watching them both get beat up. -Norm Mcdonald",
"Because they *insist* upon themselves.",
"There's no such thing as hipsters. Just ask anyone who is one.",
"I used to hate hipsters back when no one really knew what they were, but then everyone started hating them and I pretty much lost all interest.",
"I can never speak for anyone but myself obviously, but I personally dislike them because of the impression I've gotten from them. Follow my train of thought here:\n\nHipster - > Did things 'before it was cool' - > Boasting about it - > Trying to overprove you and do things better then you - > Like someone else said, snobby attitude. \n\nI hate people that try to intentionally prove to me that they are better overall, and I assume I'm not the only one about that. Sometimes it's just better to be happy for someone, even though you've got it better. ",
"Any ignorant, pretentious, closed-minded, or condescending, etc. person annoys me.",
"I think they are seen as pretentious, which no one likes ",
"I think they're real. I came back to my college after graduation and found my college overrun by what used to be a smaller crowd. They really do wear the big frame glasses, listen to obscure music, and have a pseudo intellectual tone to everything they say: \"the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a fascinating example of lah blah blah.\"\n\nI really don't mind the style, but the pseudo intellectualism is what grates everyone. You're a 20 something year old kid. You don't know shit about shit, and not knowing that makes you dumber than the rest of us. I had heard al these opinions when I was in college, but they were said with the understanding that we only understood a tiny fraction of what was going on. And that any claims made about society or culture were largely unfalsifiable and thus meaningless bullshit. \n\nBack in my day, we just called them pussies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVmmYMwFj1I"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ifc.com/shows/portlandia"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_(1940s_subculture\\)"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVmmYMwFj1I"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt1Z7TYztcA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
41bed9
|
why do analysts claim the stock market is tanking because of the glut of oil? (more in comment)
|
I'll admit my macroeconomics class was back in the early 70's. I enjoyed it a lot, and it has been useful in understanding any number of economics ups-and-downs over the years. But I'm having trouble seeing the causality between *cheap oil* - > *stock market drop*, as claimed by so many "knowledgeable" market pundits.
It seems to me that far more companies / consumers *benefit* from cheap oil than are "somehow" injured by it. I'm sure that the Dow 30 Industrials is heavily weighted by Big Oil, but the other indices are also falling.
Explain to me the cause and effect; help me connect the dots.
Note: I personally think that fear of China goings Tits Up, or of the Middle East getting into some sort of 6-way religious clusterfuck is driving the market down, rather than anything so simplistic as oil overproduction.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41bed9/eli5_why_do_analysts_claim_the_stock_market_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz10zkx",
"cz178ii"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"China has been the price setting buyer of oil for more than a decade, so the price of oil dropping is seen as the best predictor of how rapidly or severely China is going tits up. ",
"Lower oil prices are good for most American companies, and therefore good for the stock market. They mean lower energy and shipping costs for companies, and put more money in American consumers' pockets to buy more stuff. The main exceptions are companies involved in the energy industry somehow, or that depend on consumers in a part of the country that is highly dependent on that industry (e.g. Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska). Those companies and regions will do badly with lower oil prices even if most companies and most of the US population are doing better. But overall, American stock market does generally rise as oil falls.\n\nHowever, oil is a truly global market, and the US is only one part of it. When world oil prices get too low, that's considered an ominous sign of a global slowdown. There wouldn't be so much oil on the market at such a low price if there weren't serious problems in China, Brazil, Russia, and other countries. If those countries' economies were doing well, they would be consuming a lot of oil at this low price, but they aren't. So the fact that low oil prices benefit American companies doesn't outweigh the fact that the global oil glut is a sign of major economic problems across the world, and that is more of a negative for investors than the low oil prices' effect on the US companies and consumers are a positive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
f2s1mi
|
How did the power vacuum created by the fall of the western roman empire influence the events of the middle ages?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f2s1mi/how_did_the_power_vacuum_created_by_the_fall_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fheq8dl"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Hello! As Roman Imperial authority collapsed, the vacuum it left was more often than not filled by those in the best place to do so: local and regional leaders who in many cases were already *de facto* if not necessarily *de jure* authority figures. Indeed, in some cases the 'fall of Rome' could be equally described as the re-establishment of provincial independence. I wrote an answer recently [here](_URL_0_) that looked at the establishment of the Kingdom of Francia in the former Roman province of *Belgica Secunda* and its expansion into (roughly) what is now France. The tl;dr of that is that the founders of that early Frankish kingdom were all very closely linked to the Imperial power structure, whether as generals, governors or administrators. The collapse of Imperial authority simply gave them the impetus to turn that pre-existing position into one with political autonomy.\n\nAlthough things eventually went sideways, a similar situation also occurred in Britannia: according to Gildas, the regional Romano-British governments were eventually able to establish a relatively peaceful and prosperous series of polities despite the withdrawal of the Roman legions and the vast military and logistical problems this caused. It is eventually a particularly virulent outbreak of plague that precipitates the decline of these successor states and the arrival of the English rather than necessarily the lack of Imperial oversight.\n\nKey to the functioning of these post-Roman successor states is in many cases the Church, which rapidly fills the bureaucratic void left by the decline of Imperial administration. Augustine of Hippo's *The City of God*, written in the wake of Alaric's sack of Rome in 410, provides the theological blueprint that underpins much of the function of the medieval Church and its close relationship with government. In essence, Augustine argues that the Church should act as a spiritual successor to the Empire, but one that concerns itself purely with spiritual matters rather than those of earthly politics. Perhaps slightly ironically, this philosophical detachment makes the Church perfect for underpinning medieval government, providing as it does a sophisticated and codified, easily replicated and - perhaps most importantly - literate hierarchy across society that can function as a pre-made civil service without actually involving itself in squabbles for power. At least on paper. Of course, the Church almost inevitably and immediately gets drawn into politics across post-Roman Europe, but the intentions at least are good, and successor state rulers often actively courted clerical support. Clovis I of Frankia, for example, actively courted the Church in Gaul even before his conversion to Christianity, seeing the importance of the Church to the kingdom he was building."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/espxxc/z/ffd57uh"
]
] |
||
4a499s
|
How can the phase speed of a wave of light exceed C? What does this mean?
|
[I recently watched this video](_URL_0_) where he briefly talks about the phase speed of a wave of light exceeding C in very specific circumstances. I have never heard this before, so I was wondering if somebody could expand upon this for me?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4a499s/how_can_the_phase_speed_of_a_wave_of_light_exceed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0xe769",
"d0xee26"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"An analogy would be if you imagine a spinning barber pole moving in space. The information, energy, etc. propagates in the wave packet (the pole), yet the speed of phase fronts (the spirals on the pole, which seem to move faster than the pole is moving) in the wave packet move faster than the packet itself. \n\nLight waves in vacuum have both phase speed (ω/k) and group velocity (∂ω/∂k) equal to c. In dispersive media, however, these two are generally not the same. For example, light waves in cold plasma with frequency ω > ω*_pe_* (the plasma frequency) have phase speed v*_ph_* = ( c^2 + (ω*_pe_*/k)^2 )^1/2 > c, whereas they have group velocity v*_gr_* = c^2 / v*_ph_* < c. \n\nEdit: figured out how to do subscripts. ",
"The peaks and troughs of a wave travel at the phase velocity. However, this is not the only velocity associated with a wave.\n\nIf you want to transmit some information using a wave, you have to send a pulse instead of a continuous wave. Pulses don't necessarily travel at the phase velocity, even though the waves they are made of do---pulses travel at the 'group velocity.' See [this video](_URL_0_) for the case of group velocity *faster* than phase velocity; although the reverse is also possible.\n\nIn those cases where the phase velocity is faster than light, the group velocity is generally slower than light, ensuring that no information can be transmitted in violation of relativity. There are even special cases where the value of the group velocity also exceeds the speed of light; but these are very weird situations where the wave pulse gets incredibly distorted. In those situations there is another velocity, the 'front velocity' which is the speed at which the leading edge of a distorted wave pulse travels, which is *always* slower than or equal to c."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/CiHN0ZWE5bk?t=10m7s"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlM9vq-bepA"
]
] |
|
8jdke6
|
Is it true that Kosovo became Albanian majority because Tito let them in?
|
It is just something I commonly hear from Serbians. Also, they say the Kosovo Liberation Army was essentially a malicious terrorist group.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8jdke6/is_it_true_that_kosovo_became_albanian_majority/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyzcrtr"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"According to the 1921 Census of Yugoslavia (i.e. before the War, before Communism, before Tito), there was a clear Muslim and Albanian majority in Kosovo. We also see this in the 1931 census and, as far as I know, all subsequent censuses except for 1991, where many Muslim boycotted (in the 2011, many Serbs boycotted--there was no attempt at a 2001 census in Kosovo, as far as I am aware).\n\nThe 1921 and 1931 censuses have people tabulated by language and religion, but not cross tabulated, so we don't know how many of the Albanians are Muslim (there is a Christian Albanian minority) and how many of the Muslims are Albanian (there are other Muslim groups, like Slavic Muslims, Romani, and Turks). Also, neither of those is self-identitified ethnicity (though I suspect in that period, the language questions was a fairly good method of determining ethnicity). However, as I mentioned, both of these show an Albanian majority, long before Tito.\n\nThere is a debate though about exactly *when* the region became Albanian majority is debated. The area was clearly Serbian majority in the middle ages. Some have argued it was a late as the late 19th century with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, some people have argued it was as early as 16th century for parts of Kosovo. It possible (but not necessary) that both statements could be correct.\n\n[Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Kosovo 2016, put out out by the Kosovo government obviously using statistics gathered by the Yugoslavian government 1991 and before, shows ethnicity data going back to the 1948 census on for ethnicity](_URL_0_) (in order to have an apple to apples comparison--as I mentioned above, the 1921 and 31 censuses weren't actually asking about ethnicity, but about religion and language), but you can see that already in 1948, when Tito just came to power, there was a clear Albanian majority that only gradually expanded (remember, don't trust 2011 because of the ethnic Serb boycott and note that they omitted the 1991 census because of the ethnic Albanian and Muslim boycott). Look at Tab 2.4 and Fig 2.6, both on page 28."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://ask.rks-gov.net/media/2577/statistical-yearbook-2016-ang.pdf"
]
] |
|
1mc25h
|
can police pursue you beyond their jurisdiction? city lines, county lines or state lines....any difference?
|
Out of curiosity, I live on a lake that is divided by a county line - and both Sheriff Depts occasionally patrol the waters...if they see me doing something wrong across that county line, can they cross over to pursue me? If they chase me into a new county (Dukes of Hazzard style!)..what then? I don't plan on being in this situation, was just curious as to what the answer was.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mc25h/can_police_pursue_you_beyond_their_jurisdiction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc7rcqc",
"cc7v60v"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Police from one jurisdiction do have the legal authority to follow you into another jurisdiction. However, this is relatively uncommon, since they typically would have alerted that jurisdiction when approaching the boundary and that jurisdiction would have their own police waiting. Also, just because they CAN pursue, doesn't mean they WILL, depending on the situation.\n\nThe only time this doesn't apply is borders between countries, e.g. the USA-Mexico border. In this case, the police cannot follow you but, again, will typically have the other jurisdiction's police waiting for you anyway.",
"Historically, no, the cops from county A (or state, or nation) have no particular authority in county B. So if they're chasing someone, they'd either have to hand off the chase to county B's cops, or stop at the border. Hence Dukes-of-Hazzard shenanigans.\n\nHowever, there is a legal [doctrine of hot pursuit](_URL_0_), which lets police chase people into places they wouldn't be able to go if they weren't already chasing someone (across a border, into a private house, etc). It doesn't apply to all crimes (eg. it might have to be a felony), the pursuit usually has to be continuous, etc., but the doctrine is there.\n\nIn your case, IANAL but I suspect that if they see you doing something wrong *on their side* of the lake and start to pursue you, they can follow you across the boundary. But if they're looking across the lake and see you doing something, but you're doing it outside their jurisdiction, they don't have authority. They might call the other county's boats, of course, or the two departments might have some legal agreement about cooperating policing the lake, or the local courts might be in the habit of ignoring such legalities…"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediate_pursuit"
]
] |
|
az5pey
|
how much money do jewelers make knowing they have to stock their entire store with gold and diamonds?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/az5pey/eli5_how_much_money_do_jewelers_make_knowing_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei5hf45"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The rule in the jewelry business is \"triple key\", meaning if the wholesale price is $1000 the jeweler will usually start the price at $3000. This helps deal with the extra costs of running a jewelry store, which are quite high. This may sound like a large markup, but consider most retail markups are 5x or higher compared to wholesale.\n\nAs opposed to what another commenter said, most jewelry on display will be considered \"memo\" merchandise, meaning it is not owned by the shop but by a wholesaler, it is being held by the shop until it sells or the memo expires. When sold, the jeweler pays the wholesaler for the merchandise and keeps the difference.\n\nSource: nearly 10 years in the business"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
pq0l5
|
Can plants feel pain?
|
I understand that plants have to be sentient to at least a small degree*, but I'm wondering precisely how far that goes. I can't find anything reliable online - it seems everybody has an agenda of some sort. Is there any chance I could get some help with this? It's been bothering me lately.
*Turns out this part is totally wrong. My bad.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pq0l5/can_plants_feel_pain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3rbjyt"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
" > I understand that plants have to be sentient to at least a small degree, \n\n\nWhat...planet are you on? Plants do not have sentience. They do not have nerve systems. \n\nThey do have the ability to react to changes in their environment, through stimulation of hormone production leading to morphological changes. But they do not have anything analogous to nociceptors. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
29q4a6
|
do we really need to spend 8 hours a day for sleep? can we found a way to not sleep and still be healthy?
|
Is it possible to have a pill or a machine that will decrease the amount of speed to 1 hr or no sleep at all?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29q4a6/eli5do_we_really_need_to_spend_8_hours_a_day_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cine8it",
"cinedg1",
"cinee92",
"cineojo",
"cinfv85"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You don't really need 8 hours of sleep. There are ways to get the rest you need, but to sleep less. You can read about it in this article:\n\n[Alternate Sleep Cycles](_URL_0_)",
"When you are awake you brain creates trash to operate. This trash needs to get cleaned up and can only be removed during sleep. The brain cells open up and brain fluid washes the trash away.\n\nWhen you don´t sleep at all you brain will fill up with junk until it cant operate anymore. \n\nSome would say when you dont think much you dont need to sleep much. :)\n\n",
"In actuality humans really only need something around 2 hours of sleep. But that's REM sleep- the restful, restorative part. In a typical individual, the sleep stage moves in cycles- oscillating between less deep NREM sleep and the deep, restful REM stages.\n\nI have heard of instances where through brain training and hypnosis some individual's have been able to get to the point where upon going to sleep, they immediately reach the REM state and stay there. Then they only require a few hours as it is all REM stage sleep.",
" > Is it possible to have a pill or a machine that will decrease the amount of speed to 1 hr or no sleep at all?\n\nThere's tons of drugs that'll keep you awake and alert. Adderall, speed, cocaine. Doubt you'll be thinking too clearly after a while though. I have bipolar disorder and one of the symptoms is insomnia. I made it four days straight without sleep, and I started having hallucinations and was literally falling asleep while I was walking down the sidewalk. The human brain isn't designed to go without sleep.",
"I sleep about 3/4 hours a night. I can go 2 or 3 days without sleep and still feel fine and healthy. it varies for each person."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.highexistence.com/alternate-sleep-cycles/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
16o28g
|
Examples of civilizations which have died out due to poor management of natural resources.
|
I am interested in examples of cultures/civilizations/communities which have either died out or suffered significant decline due to poor management of the environment or natural resources. This could include poor farming practices, over fishing/hunting, etc.
One example I have encountered is the [Rapa Nui](_URL_0_) people of Easter Island, but my understanding is that the exact role of environmental degradation in their decline is still unclear (correct me if I am wrong).
I am most interested in examples where poor management of the environment has led to fundamental, existential threats to the civilization (rather than just a decrease in the quality of life). But any interesting examples are appreciated.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16o28g/examples_of_civilizations_which_have_died_out_due/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7xtb0g",
"c7xum56",
"c7xydvb"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Have you read \"Collapse\" by Jared Diamond? I think you would like it.",
"I'm not sure that this is exactly mismanagement, but the example seems to fit your question in most other ways and the culture in question is not one that receives a lot of attention.\n\nThe Garamantes were almost certainly a Berber-speaking people who lived in the modern Fezzan region. Despite the fact that they essentially lived in the Sahara, they successully maintained an urban civilization there. This is mostly due to their use of fossil water to irrigate a region which may still have had a milder climate than it does today. One of the most prevailing theories continues to be that the Garamantes used up all the fossil water, causing their irrigation to collapse and the need to abandon their cities. It is possible that this is not the case, but it continues to be the most popular explanation.",
"There are multiple examples of agricultural mismanagement leading to decline and collapse in Mesopotamian history. I can think of two: Firstly, the fall of the system of Urukian dominance around 3000 BC and secondly, to a minor and specious extent, the destruction of the Gutian Dynasty. \n\nFor Uruk's demise, Paul Kriwaczek in his \"Babylon\" surmises that various hardships stressed resources to the point that central authorities felt it necessary, in a move of desparation, to forcefully increase agricultural production by having all fields worked yearly, rather than alternating between one year of usage and one year of leaving the field fallow. \nThis meant that the soil wasn't allowed to recover from depletion and salinity rose, ruining the fields. \nHe quotes the Atra-Hasis epic for the results: \n“The black fields became white,\nThe broad plain was choked with salt.\nFor one year they ate grass;\nFor the second year they suffered the itch.\nThe third year came. Their features [were twisted] by hunger,\n[They were] on the verge of death.”\n\nThe Gutian Dynasty's collapse was considerably less apocalyptic, and primarily military (being overthrown by Utu-hengal), but I recall a passage somewhere saying that under their misrule, herd animals were let loose, irrigation canals were destroyed, and so on and so forth. . \nSadly I can't find that passage now, but I think that definitely counts as mismanagement of natural resources, and the dark age that resulted from such actions is what led to the military uprising that ousted them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapa_Nui_people#Interaction_with_the_Environment"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
73uuvs
|
why does drip coffee make me much more jittery than espresso, even when using the same amount of coffee beans for each?
|
For the exact numbers:
Espresso: 18g beans -- > ~2oz
Drip: 18g beans -- > ~10oz
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73uuvs/eli5_why_does_drip_coffee_make_me_much_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnt9xuh",
"dnta1ta",
"dntck40"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Espresso is extracted fast so not as much caffeine gets transferred to coffee from the bean",
"Caffeine is water soluble, in general the more water and the longer it stays in contact with the ground beans the more caffeine is extracted from the beans. BTW, French press has something like 3x the caffeine of regular coffee owing to the long time the beans are left in contact with the water.",
"Espresso actually has less caffeine than drip coffee, because the water is in contact with the beans for less time and doesn't absorb as fast.\n\nFor reference, a 12-oz cup of drip coffee usually has between about 150-250 mg of caffeine, depending on roast and type. A single shot of espresso (which is how much most coffee places will put in a 12-oz) is usually around 70-90 mg. So the amount of beans isn't the deciding factor - the type of brew is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
646jgk
|
How were the calendar and days of the week followed over 500+ years ago?
|
In the current age of technology, I normally forget the date and maybe even day of the week sometimes unless I look at my phone. Did small towns/villages 500+ years ago keep track of dates/days of the week? Did the lay farmer or non-nobleman know on a day to day basis where in the calendar they were at the time? Who kept track of all this a long time ago?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/646jgk/how_were_the_calendar_and_days_of_the_week/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfzwxp1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[Relevant previous discussion](_URL_0_)\n\n[Slightly less relevant previous discussion, though it may lead you down different paths](_URL_1_)\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wwpzj/giant_public_calendar_in_rome/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mfsvm/what_was_the_reaction_from_the_public_when_japan/"
]
] |
|
3tq76i
|
Who laid the barbed wire in No Man's Land in WWI?
|
Was it the Central or the Allies? Are there any accounts of doing the job?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3tq76i/who_laid_the_barbed_wire_in_no_mans_land_in_wwi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx8m4zl"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"**TL;DR:** Both sides!\n\nThis post of mine may be of interest to you:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pi3yi/where_did_the_barbed_wire_and_fences_come_from_in/cw6vr2h"
]
] |
|
2v30hd
|
can you develop diabetes from just drinking a lot of alcohol (separate from eating loads of sweets)?
|
From what I know, alcohol breaks down into sugars, but I dont hear of many alcoholics getting diabetes. Mostly just cirrhosis. Does that just tend to manifest first?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v30hd/eli5_can_you_develop_diabetes_from_just_drinking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"codzyo5",
"codzzmo",
"coe1l9x"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
7
],
"text": [
" > I dont hear of many alcoholics getting diabetes\n\nIt's a pretty widely recognized link - heavy drinking can lead to diabetes. I can't speculate why you haven't heard about it.",
"Im an alcoholic... amd was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in october... tho i..sure it has to do with eating horribly amd drinking like a fish",
"I am a dietitian and work in a county hospital of a large city- So first off, eating a ton of sweets is not going to cause diabetes. \n\nType 1 diabetes is caused by a lack of insulin- your pancreas stops making it. You have to take insulin or else you'll die. \nType 2 diabetes is caused when your body becomes resistant to the insulin you make. So your pancreas still works, just your cells can't use the insulin you are making. A lot of time these patients can control their blood sugar with diet, exercise, and oral medication. However, sometimes these patients eventually require insulin as well. \n\nSeveral things can cause insulin resistance including: obesity, stress, inactivity, pregnancy, illness, steroid use, and metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high triglycerides, high cholesterol, abdominal obesity). \n\nOne consequence of excessive alcohol consumption is high triglycerides. Typically, people with chronic high alcohol intake don't have the best diets and tend to be overweight/obese and don't exercise regularly. They have a lot of risk factors for developing type two diabetes. So I see a lot of alcoholic patients that have diabetes, but I think the main concern in the damage it does to your liver."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3faydg
|
What is the oldest mythic creature we have a record of?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3faydg/what_is_the_oldest_mythic_creature_we_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctniacr",
"ctn5va4"
],
"score": [
22,
33
],
"text": [
"While this is still heavily debated, modern human cognition is currently believed to have arisen sometime in or slightly before the Upper Paleolithic (~50kya to ~10kya). Being fully modern humans cognitively, this means humans living during this time would have been capable of symbolic and abstract thought, as evidence by the increased production of art (which inherently requires symbolic and abstract thought in representing one object symbolically in different mediums). While the majority of art involves depictions of real animals, there are some instances of anthropomorphic animals such as the famous [Lion Man of Hohlenstein Stadel](_URL_0_), an ivory carving from a cave in Germany which dates to the early Upper Paleolithic.\n\nWhether or not this is the earliest representation of a mythical creature, the supposed lack of abstract and symbolic thinking prior to the Upper Paleolithic makes it unlikely their are mythic creatures represented in art that much earlier. ",
"Can this include artistic depictions?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.loewenmensch.de/lion_man.html"
],
[]
] |
||
6jugpl
|
why do we have to "wait" for our eyes to adjust?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jugpl/eli5_why_do_we_have_to_wait_for_our_eyes_to_adjust/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djha1y7",
"djhg557"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Eyes adjust by deforming the [lens](_URL_0_) in your eyes. The shape of a lens change the path of the light that goes through it. By changing the shape our eyes makes so that the light has a path that makes the image of what you are seeing form exactly on the back of you eye, thus making it good (otherwise it would be blurry).\n\nWhy do we have to wait? There literally are muscles to deform the lens, so you have to wait for then to move and then to adjust, based on what your brain tells them. In the same way as when you want to raise your arm you have to wait for your muscles to actually raise it.",
"Im going to try and explain this from a system engineers perspective.\n\nLets say you are in a dark room and the light turns on suddenly. Your eyes adjust. What actually happens though? Light from the bulb hits sensors in your eyes that convert the light signal into a voltage; then that voltage travels through your nerves to your brain.\n\nOnce your brain hears this signal indicating a lot of light, it determines that your eyes need to adjust. It sends a voltage signal through your nerves to your eye muscles to contract your pupil; and it takes time for your muscles to tense up and for your pupil to actually adjust. The pupil can't move very fast, and I would venture to guess that most of the time is spent actually moving the pupil.\n\nBasically, every little step in the process takes time. Not sure if this is at all what you are looking for, but there it is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(anatomy)"
],
[]
] |
||
b8nryf
|
How did exacly John II emperor of Byzantium ended up hiring Harald Hardrada with the rest of his fellow vikings?
|
So I know this eventually happened but I can’t find any source material telling how exacly this happened. I know that Harald plundered few castles in what I belive to be Sicily and then he served in army under John II. But why?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b8nryf/how_did_exacly_john_ii_emperor_of_byzantium_ended/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ek0j8lx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hello, can I ask at first a bit of clarification? \n\n* Is 'John II emperor of Byzantium' you mentioned correct person in question? AFAIK Emperor John II is John II Komnenos (r. 1118-43), son of famous Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, thus born more than ca. 20 years after the fall of Harald Hardråde of Norway in 1066. \n* Harald probably came to Constantinople in 1033 or 1034, under the reign of Emperor Michael IV Katallakos (r. 1034-41). AFAIK all the popular accounts (both primary sources and literature) agree that his delegated to Sicily as a part of Imperial army, under the command of Georgios Maniaces who even also appeared as *Gyrgir* in 13th century kings' sagas. \n* Several Scandinavian as well as non-Scandinavian primary sources note his stay in Constantinople, but probably the most famous and generally not so inaccurate account is found in *Strategikon* by General Kekaumenos (late 11th century) as states as following: \n\n & nbsp;\n\n > 'After telling your majesty another story, I shall conclude my discussion of this [subject]. Harald was the son of the king of Varangia, and he had a brother [named] Ioulabos [Olaf] who held his father's rule upon his father's death, after casting his brother Harald into second place for the rulership after him. Since Harald was a young man, he wanted to come and show reverence to the most blessed emperor Lord Michael the Paphlagonian and to gain a view of the Roman system. He also brought with him a following of five hundred noblemen. He entered, and the emperor received him just as was allowed and sent him along with his force to Sicily. There, a Roman army was fighting for the island. Setting off, [Harald] displayed great deeds. Once Sicily was subjugated, he returned with his force to the emperor and [the emperor] honored him as a *manglabites*. After this it happened that Deljan rebelled in Bulgaria. And since Harald had his force, he went on campaign with the emperor and showed forth deeds against the enemy that we worthy of his good birth and noble character. After subjecting Bulgaria, the emperor returned home. At that time, I was fighting on behalf of the emperor as best I could. When we came to the city of Mosunoupolis, the emperor rewarded him for those [regions] for which he had fought, and honored him as a *spatharocandidatos*. After thedeath of the lord Michael and his nephew the ex-emperor [Michael the Caulker], Harald wished to return to his homeland and made this entreaty before Monomachos. He was not allowed but, in fact, his way out narrowed. Nonetheless, he secretly escaped and ruled over his land instead of his brother Ioulabos [Olaf]. Yet he did not grow proud because of the honors given to him — the [offices of] *manglabites* and *spatharocandidatos* — but rather maintained his loyalty and love for the Romans while he ruled. (*Strategikon*, Chap. 81, English translation is taken from: [*Oration of Admonition to an Emperor*](_URL_1_)). \n\n & nbsp;\n\nI'll be gladly available for any follow-up question (of course within the limit of my limited knowledge on the sources as well as academic literature, though). \n\nReferences: \n\n* [Jackson, Tatjana. 'Harald, *Bolgara brennir*, in Byzantine Service'. In: *Scandinavia and the Balkans: Cultural Interactions with Byzantium and Eastern Europe in the First Millennium AD*, ed. Oksana Minaeva & Lena Holmquist, pp. 72–82. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Pub, 2015.](_URL_0_) \n* Kaldellis, Anthony. *Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A. D. to the First Crusade.* Oxford: OUP, 2017. \n* Sigfús Blöndal & Benedikt S. Benedikz. *The Varangians of Byzantium.* Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1978. \n* Tjønn, Halvor. *Harald Hardråde*. Hafrsfjord: Saga Book, 2010. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.academia.edu/17544595/Harald_Bolgara_brennir_in_Byzantine_Service_Scandinavia_and_the_Balkans_Cultural_Interactions_with_Byzantium_and_Eastern_Europe_in_the_First_Millennium_AD_O.Minaeva_L.Holmquist._Cambridge_2015._P._72_82",
"https://acad.carleton.edu/curricular/mars/kekaumenos.pdf"
]
] |
|
3utm3d
|
why do certain things smell nice, even when they're not edible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3utm3d/eli5_why_do_certain_things_smell_nice_even_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxhpkk8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Like jet fuel or 100LL? I love those smells."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1x4s7b
|
In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, did armies ignore borders?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1x4s7b/in_the_middle_ages_and_renaissance_did_armies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf869w3"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"The answer depends where and when. Various Italian states denied (or attempted to deny) France and the Holy Roman Emperor access to their territory, typically if they disagreed with the war but did not want to get involved. This mandate was ignored at the risk of opening an additional theater of war; a strong enough army could simply march through or even invade, or the general/prince could pay for passage. The former happened to Milan on at least one occasion.\n\nElsewhere, however, territorial boundaries were completely ignored. The example that comes to mind for me (as an early modern German historian) is the Thirty Years' War, where armies from all over Europe marched and pillaged through German lands with impunity.\n\nBasically, whether or not armies ignored borders depended on whether the general felt confident that he could pass through the territory without angering an enemy formidable enough to hurt his war effort.\n\nSources:\n\nThomas Brady, *German Histories in the Age of Reformations, 1400-1650*\n\nPeter Wilson, *The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7jeosg
|
What was the typical medical aftermath for someone who has been tarred and feathered?
|
I'm specifically thinking during the American revolutionary period, I've always heard about people getting tarred and feathered, but I've always wondered just how bad it would be in terms of recovery.
Let's say I'm a British spy who has just been outed, and as a result have been tarred and feathered in the public square. What's my next move, and how are my chances of survival/keeping my face?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7jeosg/what_was_the_typical_medical_aftermath_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dr61eyc"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"fyi, you may find these related posts of interest\n\n* [Was \"tarring and feathering\" fatal? And where in the world was it most often done?](_URL_0_) featuring /u/Goethite\n\n* [How common was tarring and feathering in the American revolutionary period? Also, was this practice supported by revolutionary leadership?](_URL_3_) featuring /u/LordKettering\n\n* [I am living in colonial Boston and am tarred and feathered, what is the day it happens like for me?](_URL_1_) featuring /u/smileyman\n\n* [Tarred and Feathered](_URL_2_) featuring /u/quickspore"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kl459/was_tarring_and_feathering_fatal_and_where_in_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wqyq3/i_am_living_in_colonial_boston_and_am_tarred_and/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fmpwc/tarred_and_feathered",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bmqcj/how_common_was_tarring_and_feathering_in_the/"
]
] |
|
2jj09g
|
What was the USA's objective when using atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did they expect this to speed up a surrender more than Soviet invasion?
|
From skimming the [FAQ](_URL_0_) it seems that the Soviet invasion had a greater (though not necessarily insignificant) psychological impact on the Japanese leadership than the atomic bombs (though there seems to be some contention).
Did the American leadership believe the Soviet invasion would be a more effective surrender incentive?
If yes, why did they 'waste' the debut of their secret weapon on an enemy already on the verge of surrender? Were the Americans trying to speed surrender up even further? Trying to cut the Soviets out of the surrender negotiations? Making a 'show of force'
towards the Soviets in anticipation of the imminent Cold War?
If no, what caused the Americans to underestimate the psychological impact of the Soviet invasion? What role did they expect the atomic bombs to play in bringing about surrender?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2jj09g/what_was_the_usas_objective_when_using_atomic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clcf4ja"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In short, they hoped to force Japan to surrender before the Soviets could help us, if at all possible, to avoiding having to clash with them over post-war Japan, in addition to post-war Europe.\n\nAt the Yalta conference, the Soviets agreed to join us in subduing Japan, \"two or three months\" after the Germans surrendered. This happened on May 8/9, 1945. However, after the Trinity test in July 1945, Truman realized that if we could build and use nuclear bombs quickly enough, we could force Japan to surrender before the Soviet Union could join us. This would mean that that US would have unilateral control over post-war Japan, and the Soviet Union wouldn't have any standing to ask for concessions. Part of these concessions, as specified at the Yalta conference, were the Sakhalin and Kuril islands.\n\nAlso, the Japanese were not quite \"on the verge of surrender.\" They were losing, and were pretty much assured to lose at that point in the war, but the Americans were expecting heavy military casualties, and a prolonging of an already long war, if they were forced to invade the Japanese home islands. They had plans drawn up, in the form of Operation Downfall, and while estimates vary, we were probably looking at an additional 18 months of war and somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dead, and another 500,000-1,500,000 injured. And that's just the US military casualties. That doesn't take into account the Japanese casualties, both civilian and military, or the Soviet casualties.\n\nI don't have any hard sources at my fingertips, as I'm recalling this from memory, but I know that I read a lot about this in \"The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan\" by Wilson D. Miscamble."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_the_atomic_bombs"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
1lnudd
|
We have superhydrophobic surfaces (ex. neverwet) Are there superoxygenphobic/superairphobic surfaces? What would that even be like?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lnudd/we_have_superhydrophobic_surfaces_ex_neverwet_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc12vhy",
"cc16u72"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Superhydrophobic surfaces utilize the entropic benefit from hydrogen bonding in water (the polarity of the partially positive hydrogen and the partially negative of the oxygen can interact to hold different molecules together). The surfaces use a combination of a non-polar surface and special topography to create the hydrophobic effect.\n\nIn gasses, molecules are placed much further apart than in liquids, so you don't experience a similar entropic benefit from the molecules \"clumping together\" because they are too far away to interact as many times! Also gas molecules don't just sit around, the molecules are bouncing all over the place so you are really asking is there a surface that could stop gas molecules from coming near it.\n\ntldr:\nIt doesn't work the same way with liquids as gasses because the molecules are too far apart to experience the important intermolecular forces, namely hydrogen bonding.",
"There are no gas-phobic substances or nanomaterials that I know of. There are plenty of materials that trap gasses selectively (such as [hydroscopics](_URL_2_) and [molecular sieves](_URL_3_)), there are also materials that block liquids and allow gasses through ([essentially filters](_URL_4_)), and finally there are ways to manipulate air and other gases using magnetic fields ([electrostatic fluid accelerators](_URL_1_)).\n\nI am not exactly sure what you are referring to yet. For all I know it's probably under development right now. But there are none in the public domain. They are also considerably harder to design because while hydrophobic substances (like neverwet) work by causing a layer of air to be created between the liquid and the surface by increasing the contact angle by means of making the surface really ['spikey' on the nanoscale](_URL_0_), what would form in a layer between a gas and a surface? A vacuum? A liquid? People put oil on iron to keep the oxygen from penetrating and causing rust, does this count as gas-phobic?\n\nThe best answer I can give you is- people are working on it, I guarantee you. The answer most likely involves molecular sieves, materials that allow one gas to pass through but block out other gasses. But as for making a coating that repels just gasses in general, I would just say: why not just oil or grease?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjnano/content/figures/2190-4286-2-27-2.jpg?scale=2.0&max-width=1024&background=FFFFFF",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_fluid_accelerator",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroscopic",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeolite",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goretex"
]
] |
||
afr0n2
|
With the Roman Empire being such a popular topic here, was a typical Roman citizen at all interested in or impressed with previous empires?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/afr0n2/with_the_roman_empire_being_such_a_popular_topic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ee1t9yw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is interested topic. Both Romans and Greeks were very well impressed by the remains of ancient Egypt Empire. There are several \"visitors graffiti\" in the Egypt and historians of that period talking with much respect about Egyptians and specially their architectonical achievements."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1vsuph
|
Why are alligators endemic to the US and China, but nowhere else?
|
Not long ago I was surprised to learn that alligators are endemic to just two areas of the world: the southeast United States and China. It just strikes me as odd that an animal that's been around for hundreds of millions of years would now be limited to just two areas, and that those two areas just happen to be basically on opposite sides of the globe.
Is this just one of those things, an evolutionary coincidence? Or is there something about the US and China that make them particularly hospitable to alligators, or perhaps particularly inhospitable to crocodiles or other competitors, or perhaps something else entirely?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vsuph/why_are_alligators_endemic_to_the_us_and_china/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cevqkca"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is an extremely interesting question. Fossil alligators in North America predate those in Asia, so as far as we can tell, the genus originated there and dispersed to Asia. The thing is, we don't know exactly how they did that. Neither species can tolerate salt water for very long, so it wasn't an oceanic dispersal. It could have been via Eurasia, but it's typically assumed to be via the Bering Strait. \n\nThere are a number of fossil species found farther north in North America, and even a couple from Europe (like [*Arambourgia*](_URL_0_) and [*Hassiacosuchus*](_URL_1_), but these predate the first alligators in China by millions of years, and those Chinese fossils are in the same genus as the alligators found there and in the US today.\n\nAs for why they're not found more places, well, we have caimans farther south in the Americas, which are in the same family. Unlike alligators, they're not tolerant of freezing temperatures. Alligators are the only temperate crocodylians and the only who can withstand hard freezes. Their range ends basically where other crocodiles and caimans can survive, so it's thought that they're outcompeted. \n\nI realize this is not a very satisfying answer, because it bugs the heck out of me too!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arambourgia",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassiacosuchus"
]
] |
|
cm7d3f
|
Why don't large organisms with many cells develop cancer more often?
|
From what I understand about cancer, it develops as a result of an error in the DNA sequence of a cell that causes uncontrollable growth. Any time a cell divides, it is at a small risk of becoming a cancerous cell just due to the random errors that come with DNA transcription/translation. If this is the case, then why don't very large animals with many cells develop cancer (or really any other diseases that come from DNA errors) at extremely high rates due to how often cell division occurs in their bodies?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/cm7d3f/why_dont_large_organisms_with_many_cells_develop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ew3f41h"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"What you described is called [Peto's Paradox](_URL_1_): why do we not see a correlation between animal size and cancer rates.\n\nThere are lots of different mechanisms of cancer suppression/avoidance in larger animals. For example, the best studied cancer gene is called p53. Humans (and other animals) only have one copy of the p53 gene, whereas elephants have [20 copies of this gene.](_URL_0_)\n\nLarge body size has evolved independently numerous times throughout animals - elephants, whales, hippopotamus, giraffe, bison, and others. Other animals (such as the whale) have been checked for an expansion of the p53 gene and they do not have as many copies as elephants, therefore they must have evolved some other methods of suppressing cancer. These are all still being researched and can give insight into cancer development.\n\nThe exact mechanisms aside, in general, the reason why Peto's paradox exists is because, along the evolutionary path to become bigger, these animals would have evolved methods to suppress cancer. As the species got bigger, those that were susceptible to cancer would have died out and left behind those that had mutations that made them more resistant to developing cancer. As there was considerable selective pressure to evolve to become bigger, cancer would become more prevalent, and strategies to suppress cancer would also be selected for strongly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27642012",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox"
]
] |
|
28xebn
|
what would happen if charging interest on loans were to be made illegal?
|
How would it affect economies and distribution of wealth? Would it be different if it happened:
In a small country?
In an economic superpower such as the US?
Worldwide?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28xebn/eli5_what_would_happen_if_charging_interest_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cifdykd",
"cife4cz",
"cifefqu"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"If a lender could not charge interest on a loan, they would have no incentive to ever give out loans because they would be essentially throwing away their money. Even though they would get back the exact amount they lent out, the present value of it in a few years would most likely be less than it was when it was first lent out due to inflation. Basically, lenders would stop lending.",
"Then there would be no motive for people to lend out their money. They'd only lend money to family and friends. \n\nPeople who don't have wealthy relatives or friends would be shit out of luck. The distribution of wealth would get dramatically worse because poor people would lack the ability to start businesses, go to college, or buy houses. We'd basically be reverting back to feudal-era wealth distribution. ",
"You could look at Islamic banking, as Sharia Law forbids usury. Islamic banks get around this pretty easily though.\n\nAt a bank in the western world, if you want a loan to buy a house, the bank gives you the amount of money needed to buy the house and you keep paying the bank interest on the outstanding amount you owe them until you pay the bank off.\n\nOne example of an approach Islamic banks will take to get around not being able to charge interest is to buy the house, then sell it to you for more than they bought it. You pay the above market sale price back to the bank in installments. So, technically, no interest. And the bank literally owns your house until you repay them all of the sale price.\n\nThere are other more complicated ways around not being able to explicitly charge intrerest as well. In any case, even Islamic banks don't just lend money without turning a profit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
287thr
|
Why do people have different reactions than others to drugs? Why do some get side effects while others don't? What differences in biology could account for this?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/287thr/why_do_people_have_different_reactions_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci8eya9"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of reasons. One of the major ones is variations in metabolic pathways or in the targets of drugs due to genetic variation. There's a whole field of science, [pharmacogenetics](_URL_0_) that studies this.\n\nBasically, we are all different, usually by small changes in genes. This could be what levels certain genes are expressed at, or when and where they come on, or in the actual structure of the genes. Let's say a drug targets protein X, shutting it down to cause its effect. If one person makes 50% as much of protein X, then they may need only 50% of the drug. Another common way is that a drug is metabolized before it becomes effective, or metabolized to turn off its effect. There is a lot of genetic variability in metabolic pathways and can really alter the way that a drug may work.\n\nThere are many real-world examples of this and the linked wikipedia article points to some of the more common. Nowadays, we have more and more assays to assess how drugs may work in people. The article discusses the TPMT blood test, which is now standardly done before starting a patient on azathioprine or the related drug 6-MP. \n\nThere are other reasons. A common reason is allergy. There's tremendous variability between the immune systems of different people. In fact, it's [a feature](_URL_1_) of immune development to develop this. This means different people may respond and even form a reaction to different compounds based on how their immune system has developed or on what their immune system has seen.\n\nOther reasons may include diet (for instance grapefruit juice can alter a drug's effect), or disease. For instance, amoxicillin and ampicillin can cause a rash in people who have an active Epstein-Barr Virus infection..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacogenetics",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V(D)J_recombination"
]
] |
||
56tcjx
|
how do dry cleaners avoid spreading lice and bed bugs?
|
Considering how insidious they are, dry cleaners must get clothes infested with them pretty often.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56tcjx/eli5_how_do_dry_cleaners_avoid_spreading_lice_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8m6fsp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Dry cleaners use perchloroethylene to clean your clothes, it's a pretty aggressively anti-bug chemical. Now those new \"environmental cleaners\" might be a problem. Similarly, they launder shirts and dry them at super high temperatures (because it's faster) and bugs can't stand those temps.\n\nThis is not excuse not to tell them that you're having things cleaned because of an infestation, there are people working there. However, if you tell them they can handle it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2o87h1
|
what makes someone professionally good at fishing?
|
I assume that there are rankings in professional fishing. What qualities makes one person consistently better than another?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o87h1/elif_what_makes_someone_professionally_good_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmkofb2",
"cml5a9y"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Probably experience and perception. I'm sure a good fisherman can tell where the fish will likely be in the lake, or how deep to go to get certain fish and what patterns they follow",
"A big portion of professional fishing is simply dedicating plenty of time to the sport and attending events. Nobody can make the fish bite and pros will be unlucky somedays. Statistically attending several events a month will earn you a few big wins over the season.\n\nFishing is also a very political sport involving who you know in the upper-divisions and having the money to cover airfare and other expenses (rental fees, licensing, equipment, etc.) Fishing is a sport where once you've \"made it\" you are pretty set in the sport. Often times this includes sponsorships to cover every type of equipment you can imagine and waived entry fees from past qualifications/notoriety. \n\nThis sport also has the benefit of being low-injury so aged players in the industry still remain competitive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3izlg6
|
Why is digital preffered over analog when digital is limited to just on and off?
|
I have done some basic reading on the two systems, but as in the title I cant quite wrap my head around the concept. shouldn't analogue circuits be able to transmit more information since they are capable of operating at different voltages, or is there something I am missing ?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3izlg6/why_is_digital_preffered_over_analog_when_digital/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuottfn",
"cullb0d",
"culq2eo",
"culzxb0"
],
"score": [
2,
14,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Noise is a big factor in limiting [channel capacity](_URL_0_) of either analog or digital. \n\nDigital communications can use error detection and correction. Digital can use less bandwidth than analog. Analog TV channels are 6 Mhz wide. The same 6 Mhz spectrum can carry a 19.4Mbit stream. Enough for one HD and three SD channels. ",
"Analog signals also have a [data limit](_URL_1_)! Noise (which is unavoidable) will limit the accuracy that you can get from an analog recording. On the other hand, as soon as you record the ones and zeroes of a digital recording, you can reproduce it perfectly from then on. The fact that digital signals are definite streams of on or off is actually their greatest strength, since it's possible to correct them when the data channel is noisy (since the on and off state are much easier to tell apart than the .27336 vs .27337 of analog audio). And since humans can only hear sounds up to about 20,000 Hz, we can use the [Nyquist theorem](_URL_0_) to perfectly reproduce any sound signal with a sampling rate of at least 40,000 Hz. The only limit is the bit resolution of the sample, but it's easy to reduce that to below the level that humans can tell the difference. ",
" > shouldn't analogue circuits be able to transmit more information since they are capable of operating at different voltages, or is there something I am missing ? \n\nYou are right if you have only one information channel e.g. one wire and unpredictable data (which would sound like noise if it where audio). Then analog can transmit more data.\n\nBut if the data stream is not unpredictable e.g. you now that it's an audio signal or TV then you can transmit data with a lower bandwidth than analog and you can even add error correction to it.\n\nThe reason is that you can compress data. With analog you are sending a lot of redundancy. In an audio signal the information is basically the same in each period. So instead of sending a periodic signal you could send a command like \"play D# for 200ms\". (That's a gross simplification what mp3 does). And you can add error correction to it; so if a bit flips it will have no influence over the signal. And still the bandwidth is lower than an analog transmission.\n\n\nAnother example is filtering: \n\nIf you want to build a precise filter with analog components they need to have that precision. A capacitor with a 1% tolerance is quite good but that's just 7 bits in digital terms. To get one more bit you need to double the effort. There are a lot more problems like large components, large voltages inside the filter loops etc.\n\nAll this is no problem in a digital filter because it's just numbers: Computing the number \"65535\" costs only twice as much as computing \"255\", not 256 times as much as it would in analog. \n\nSo the way to go is: \n\nAnalog to digital Converter - > digital signal processing - > Digital to analog converter. ",
"\"Digital\" in the sense I think you mean-- used for transmitting information through a channel-- is not just 0 or 1. I think you may be assuming all digital signals are binary. Digital signals are not necessarily binary, although they are necessarily discrete-- your signal could have four different discrete values, or 10, or thousands. \n\nThere are many, many different ways to do this, but just to pick one example, HDTV broadcast signals use 64-QAM or 256-QAM, which have far more possible values than just on or off. 64-QAM uses a 64-symbol constellation to encode, with a resulting efficiency of about six bits per symbol. That's pretty complicated stuff, though-- you can think of a simple encoding with ten values as well. It's still digital if there's ten possible discrete values."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
537yv6
|
What do we know about related history between Bulgarians and Macedonians?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/537yv6/what_do_we_know_about_related_history_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7qx5pc"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"I assume with ‘Macedonians’ you mean Slavic Macedonians living in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), who are distinct from the Greek Macedonians that live in the Greek province of Macedonia. This distinction lies at the heart of the naming conflict between the FYROM and Greece I wrote a paper about a year ago. The separation of Slavic Macedonians from the Bulgarians in terms of history is a quite ‘recent’ phenomenon and like most elements of Slavic Macedonian history a modern construct. For most of its history Slavic-Macedonian history was very much related with the history of the Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks. \n\n & nbsp;\n\nThe language spoken by the Slavic Macedonians, Macedonian, is closely related to Bulgarian. Indeed, the Bulgarian reading of history claims that the language of the people of the Republic of Macedonia is merely a dialect of Bulgarian. As an extension of this attitude the Bulgarians believe that the people and the territory of the Republic of Macedonia belong, both historically and culturally, to the Bulgarian nation. Because of this the Bulgarians effectively deny the existence of a distinctive Slav-Macedonian nation. The creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in the late 19th century, a separation of the Bulgarians from the Greek Orthodox Church was what instigated the division of Macedonia amongst the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians. The Bulgarians state attempted to regain what it regarded as lost Macedonian territory from Serbia and Greece by aligning itself with Germany during both World Wars.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nIt was the end of the Second World War and the founding of the Socialist Yugoslavian Republic that allowed the Slavic Macedonians to consolidate a national identity distinct from the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians. This effort was encouraged by the central Yugoslav government in Belgrade, which sought to dispel any Greek and Bulgarian claims on the territory. Examples of this realization of identity were the founding of the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the codification of the Macedonian language. These elements provided instruments for the Slavic Macedonians with which they could set themselves apart from their neighbours and reject any claim form Serbian, Greek or Bulgarian side that they were merely an offshoot of their respective nations and therefore not deserving of their own identity.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nThe construction of such a new identity, separated from already established ones, saw the new Slavic Macedonian nation morphing cultural elements shared with the Bulgarians or the Greeks to fit their newly created nation’s history. The codification of ‘the separate Macedonian language’ was very unappealing to the Bulgarians, as it rejected their claim that the Slavic Macedonians belonged to their nation and were in fact speaking a dialect of their language. The Slavic Macedonians took possession of this ‘dialect’ and used it as a basis for their newly created identity.The question of Slavic-Macedonian identity is determined by the view the Bulgarians, Greeks and Slavs of Macedonia have regarding Slavic-Macedonian national identity.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nSources:\n\n & nbsp;\n\nTriandafyllidou, A., Calloni, M. & Mikrakis, A. (1997). New Greek Nationalism. Sociological Research Online. 2 (1)\n\nEngstrom, J. (2002). The power of Perception: The Impact of the Macedonian Question on Inter-ethnic Relations in the Republic of Macedonia. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics. 1 (3). Pp. 3-17\n\n & nbsp;\n\nThis is my first submission here, I hope my answer clears up some of the questions you had. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3vfxhs
|
If motion is relative, why is it (theoretically) possible for one massive object to move in 0.5c in one direction and for another to move at the same speed in the opposite direction?
|
Title.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3vfxhs/if_motion_is_relative_why_is_it_theoretically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxn8tju",
"cxna135",
"cxneu5n"
],
"score": [
22,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's perfectly possible for the relative velocity of two objects, as perceived by an external observer, to be greater than the speed of light. This is not a contradiction of the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light because relative velocities are not the same in different reference frames in special relativity. Our classical intuition tells us that if the relative velocity of two objects is greater than the speed of light, it must be the case that one of the objects would see the other object travel faster than the speed of light in their reference frame. It turns out this is not the case in special relativity, even in the case where the relative velocity of two objects is greater than the speed of light in some external frame, in the frame of the objects themselves they will always see the other travel slower than light speed.",
"There is a difference between *absolute* velocity of a *single* object and *relative* velocity as seen from some inertial frame. The maximum *absolute* speed is c and the maximum *relative* speed between to objects is in the case of to massless particles moving in opposite direction and is in this case 2c.\n\nNow let's consider your case of two objects A and B moving in opposite directions with speed 0.5c with respect to *your* reference frame. Now changing reference frame to one of the object A we see that *you* are moving with speed 0.5c. To find out what the speed of object B is in this reference frame we apply the [relativistic velocity addition formula](_URL_0_) and get:\n\nvB' = (vA+vB)/(1 + vA vB/c^(2)) = (0.5c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c x 0.5c/c^(2)) = 1/1.25c = 0.8c\n\nWhich is smaller than the speed of light as it should be.",
"It's because you have *two* independent objects with *two* independent speeds. Each object has a speed limit of c. They can travel in opposite directions, therefore the limit of the difference in their speeds is 2c.\n\nThis does not happen when you consider a single object's speed because you are implicitly comparing that speed against your reference frame's origin, which will always be stationary.\n\nIn either object's reference frame (where that object is stationary), that object will still see the other object moving at c or less, due to the fact that speeds do not add up linearly in relativity like they do in classical mechanics.\n\nHope that helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula"
],
[]
] |
|
7uvdtb
|
When the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, did people at the time know that they were witnessing the fall of the Roman Empire?
|
After Constantinople fell, did the Ottomans and the world in 1453 know that the Byzantines were the last remnants of the former Roman Empire and that they were witnessing its death?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7uvdtb/when_the_byzantine_empire_fell_in_1453_did_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtookac"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The continuation of Monstrelet's chronicle (which consists of almost everything in said chronicle after 1444; Monstrelet himself died in 1453), written by Mathieu d'Escouchy, which is in large part cribbing from the *Grandes Chronique's de France* as well as Jean Chartier has this to say: \n\n\n > \". . . the grand Turk with a numerous army of Saracens had invaded Christendom; that he had already conquered the noble of city of Constantinople and almost all Greece; that he had captured **the emperor of Greece**, had caused caused him to be inhumanly beheaded. . .\" \n\n \nHe goes on to accuse the Sultan of various other terrible deeds like burning down Hagia Sophia. All of this should be balanced against the well documented Ottoman policy of trying to win over their conquered subjects and the status afforded to Orthodox Christianity within the empire. Also, it would have been a bit hard for Sultan Mehmet to have turned Hagia Sophia into a mosque had he burned it down. \n\nThis account comes from a letter from the Pope to the Duke of Burgundy, who is urged to go on crusade against the Turks. And frankly, these accounts of Turkish atrocities in capturing Constantinople remind me of nothing so much as the various versions of Pope Urban's speech calling the First Crusade at the Council of Claremont.\n\nIn a later chapter the siege of Constantinople is actually described (because that's how the continuation of Monstrelet rolls) and the conflict is clearly presented as between Turks and Christians; not Romans. This is surely in part due to the coalition that was defending Constantinople. But there is also certainly an element of this being portrayed as a great clash between the Christian and Muslim worlds. The chronicle here refers to \"The emperor of Constantinople\".\n\nThe continuation *does* mention Rome, but not in association with the Byzantines: \n\n > \". . . the grand Turk, when only twenty-tree or twenty-four years old, was more cruel than Nero, and delighted in shedding blood: he was bold and ambitious, and more ardent to conquer the world than Alexander or Caesar.\" \n\nInterestingly, the comparison with Alexander also appears in Greek sources and appears to have been part of how Mehmet saw himself. Later, as this Chronicler is setting out his grand and definitely plausible plan for a great crusade he says: \n\n > \". . . the Greeks will be anxious to recover their lands by the sword\" \n\nAgain, Byzantium is clearly conceived of as a lost Greek empire; there's no association in the chronicle between it and Rome. Where allusions to antiquity are coming up they're in comparing Mehmet to ancient conquerors.\n\nThe Chronicler recounts a letter from the Sultan to the Pope. The French used is \"desquelles la teneur s'ensuit\" which the translation I've been using renders as \"The tenour of the last was as follows\". I'm not sure whether to interpret this as a claim to providing the literal content of the letter, or just the gist of it - anybody with more knowledge of Middle French would be a big help here. Regardless, this letter, the text of which we should take with an entire shaker full of salt (considering that not only is he highly unlikely to have actually seen correspondence between the Pope and Sultan for himself, but he's absolutely hostile to the Sultan) says: \n\n > \"We marvel, therefore, and grieve, that the Italians should be our enemies - for we are naturally inclined to be attached to them, as being, like to ourselves, of the issue of the trojan race, and of ancient birth. We are sprung from the same blood, and regularly descended from king Priam and his line. . .\" \n\nAgain, there's an attempt to locate the Turks within the context of the classical past. Indeed the Aeniad quite famously attempts to connect the Romans to the Trojans.\n\nAnother interesting passage: \n\n > \"We have also the intention of restoring Troy the great, and to avenge the blood of Hector and the queen Ixion, by subjecting to our government the *empire of Greece* and punishing the descendants of the transgressors.\" \n\nThis is actually pretty definitive in establishing a link between classical Greece and the Byzantine Empire and not classical Rome in the mind of this chronicler. I feel pretty comfortable saying here that the chronicler is putting words in the Sultan's mouth; none of this jives with his actual policy, which was one of substantial leniency towards Orthodox Christians. Nor does it jive with his presentation of himself as 'Kaysar-i-Rum' which sort of doesn't work so well if the thing you just took over was a Greek and not a Roman empire.\n\nThe chronicler also denies the Venetians a claim to the Roman past: \n\n > \"we know the Venetians to be a distinct people, in their manners and laws, from the Romans.\" \n\nThen he has Mehmet invoke Jupiter and assorted other Roman gods. Again, this is another sign of the chronicler putting words in the Sultan's mouth because I am pretty sure Sultan Mehmet II did not worship \"our great god Jupiter\". I'd absolutely love somebody more well versed in Ottoman history to weigh in on how much they think this chronicle is carrying echoes of Mehmet's own propaganda. /u/Chamboz if you have the time?\n\nSo, let's call this a Franco-Burgundian perspective. The Chronicler himself is a shameless partisan of the Duke of Burgundy and the stuff he cribs from Chartier and the *Grandes Chroniques* represents the French perspective. He is, clearly, part of a long medieval tradition of identifying the Byzantine Empire as Greek, as the Greek Empire. He shows no knowledge of Constantinople's ties to ancient Rome, looking instead to classical Greece for historical parallel. To the Chronicler the fall of Constantinople represented a major blow to the Christian world. You can see this is just how much space he devotes to it - the continuation is fixated on France in a way that Monstrelet himself was not, so this is quite the exception. But, it does not appear to this chronicler to have represented the fall of the Roman Empire in any meaningful sense.\n\nJean de Waurin, another Burgundian chronicler, of this period, gives basically identical details. I'll spare you the horrors of my attempts to translate it into English but again, it's described as the conquest of \"Constantinople and almost all of Greece\". Again, as we saw with Mathieu d'Escouchy the focus is on Constantinople as a Christian city. \n\nWhilst I'm not even going to try and claim that I can speak for the writers of any other region than those that I've mentioned I hope this gives you some idea of how the fall of Constantinople was perceived in French and Burgundian chroniclers. The event was a big enough deal that we could be here all day going through the reactions to it in Christian histories and art.\n\nFamously, Mehmet himself *did* recognise the connection between Constantinople and Rome and titled himself 'Kayser-i Rum'. But the couple of books on Ottoman history I have don't really go into this, so hopefully somebody else can give you actual detail on the way continuity manifested itself.\n\nThe divorce of the Byzantine Empire from its Roman legacy came about fairly early on; centuries before the city fell. A good example of this is in Liudprand of Cremona's history of the Reign of Otto I from the 10th century. Here Liutprand is already referring to the Byzantines as Greeks, for example: \"At this same period Simeon of Bulgaria began to press the Greeks very hard.\" Nevertheless, Liutprand is well aware of the connections between Byzantium and Rome, for example when he's attempting to insult the Emperor Nikephoras he says \"For us the word Roman is comprehended every form of lowness\". This is shortly after the Emperor has tried to insult Liutprand by pointing out that his people, the Lombards, aren't Romans.\n\nAs for the Greek sources, as you might expect, they view the fall of the city as something of a calamity. Furthermore, they're keening aware of the ties between Constantinople and Rome. For example, when Doukas is scolding the citizens of the city he says \"You miserable Romans, you wretches\". Kritoboulos says that the destruction of the Romans was a huge event. Yet, these sources also make reference to the 'Hellenes' which evokes a classical mold of Greek identity. I really would be so far out of my lane as to just be speculating on how 'Roman' and 'Hellene' as categories of identity interacted in the late Byzantine world, so any help on this one would be hugely appreciated.\n\nSources: \nEnguerrand de Monstrelet, *Chronicles*, trans. Thomas Johnes, 1810 (my kingdom for a modern critical edition of Monstrelet with facing text). \nJean de Waurin, *Chronicles Vol. 5*, edited by Sir William Hardy. \nLiutprand of Cremona, *History of Otto*. \nM. Nikolić, 'The Greatest Misfortune in the Oikoumene Byzantine Historiography on the Fall of Constantinople in 1453', in *Balcanica*, vol. 47 (2016), pp. 119-133. \nH. Inalcik, *Essays in Ottoman History*\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
74eczr
|
how do certain drugs cause you to see things in high detail that aren't actually there?
|
It's mindboggling to me. In one of my experiences, I saw little green dots covering one of my walls. I could walk up and touch each one and they never moved. It was as if I painted them there and could only see them under the influence.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74eczr/eli5_how_do_certain_drugs_cause_you_to_see_things/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnxo1hx"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nHallucinogens work by shutting down neurons that have the effect of calming other cells in the visual cortex (the bit of the brain that works out what you are seeing). So these cells start firing as if they are really dealing with real visual information. \n\nHuman eyes are actually not that great and the brain has to do A LOT to make the partial information from the eye into a proper picture. Mess that with slightly and not only does weird stuff visual stuff happen, the brain acts as though it's all real."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT2A_receptor"
]
] |
|
xrnka
|
On brain activity and perception: Can we slow down how we perceive time?
|
Hello there scientists!
I'm here today to trouble you with a question that I came up with last night at work.
I work 3rd shift data entry which -- as anyone who has pulled an all night study session is aware -- involves a lot of coffee and repetition.
Throughout my time working that shift I have observed that when I am dosed with caffeine I perceive noticeably slower than if I am not dosed on caffeine. While thinking about it at lunch, that perceived time dilation would be an obvious side effect of caffeine... however I am not a chemist, nor am I a biologist. I do not know how exactly we perceive time, nor if the stimulation that comes with caffeine can have any effect on it.
I'd hypothesize that speed at which we perceive time is dictated by the number of synapses our brain performs within a certain segment, say... a second, thus speeding up the number of synapses that are performed within a second would increase the perceived length of a second. Of course this whole hypothesis is based on the assumption that while dosed with caffeine our brain sees a noticeable increase in synapse frequency. It's more likely a placebo brought about by my imagination.
But I digress, my questions to you are these:
1. Can we change how we perceive time by increasing or decreasing brain activity?
2. If so, what substances would one be able to obtain (legally) to either increase or decrease their perception of time?
any links to studies about the topic would be greatly appreciated for my own nerdy readings.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xrnka/on_brain_activity_and_perception_can_we_slow_down/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5ozisb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[This](_URL_0_) Wikipedia article talks about time perception, and it's field of study. It probably doesn't answer all of your questions, but it goes over a lot of what's in your post. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception"
]
] |
|
b6l6du
|
Why does banging 2 objects together produce sound? e.g. knocking on a door
|
I understand at a basic level *what* sound is. I'm wonder why me rapping my knuckles on a door produces vibrating waves of air so much louder than, say, "knocking" but never actually making contact with the door. What is it about that point of contact that produces a noise?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b6l6du/why_does_banging_2_objects_together_produce_sound/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejlcmwa"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Take a look at how [this drum head moves when it gets hit](_URL_0_). \n\nThe door does almost the exact same thing from your fist, but to a much smaller degree. As it shakes back and forth, it creates waves in the air that create sound. \n\nMost doors probably are partially hollow as well--in that case, the air in the middle of the door acts like a spring, transferring the energy back and forth between the front and back of the door and making it all vibrate for longer.\n\nSomething that is extremely stiff and won't move much at all will be very quiet when you hit it because it won't vibrate enough to move air around. Try knocking on a big rock sometime and you'll see what I mean."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STSWLX23xqc"
]
] |
|
621ho8
|
Are we physically affected by reading left to right?
|
Is there any effect on our posture, eyes, neck, muscles or spine, etc?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/621ho8/are_we_physically_affected_by_reading_left_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfk58nm",
"dfl8bwu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm also interested to know how it affects other parts of our lives, such as when crossing the road, do LR reading people look left first? Or is that more dependent on what side of the road people drive on? When looking at a tapestry or large 'busy' painting, do RL readers start from the right? ",
"I would think so, but probably minimally. I work in a research lab with a friend who is Muslim and they read right to left so often their websites are designed differently and by using his computer I almost felt incompetent just because everything seems completely backwards from how I physically view the world.\n\nThis made me curious about how much this small cultural difference affects individual developments of fundamental beliefs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
97kp02
|
why is it in the west hiv infections are still primarily related with homosexual activity and drug use but in africa where the vast majority of worldwide cases is it primarily spread through heterosexual transmission?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/97kp02/eli5why_is_it_in_the_west_hiv_infections_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e48w8h6",
"e48wqxr",
"e48wrvt",
"e48wxlm"
],
"score": [
17,
2,
15,
3
],
"text": [
"\nBetter access to contraceptives in the West. Less contraceptives are used in homosexual activities because no risk of pregnancy, drug use because sharing needles. ",
"Intravenous drug users and people who have anal sex are at the most risk for being infected with HIV, but with enough time, it can spread to even people who are at low-risk for infection. The HIV virus originated in Central Africa, most likely making the transition from monkeys to humans via the consumption of bushmeat some time around the turn of the 20th century. It has had more than a century to spread across Africa, whereas the first known cases *outside* of Africa occurred in the 1960s. After it's reached a critical mass of people, it spreads very easily through mother-to-child transmission and heterosexual sex transmission.\n\nOutside of Africa, it has mostly only affected those who are the highest risk. Inside of Africa, it has had enough time to affect almost everyone. ",
"Drug use is actually the far minority - less than 10% of new HIV cases.\n\nIt is true that more than 2/3 of new HIV cases are in homosexual/bisexual men in the west - this is due to a couple of factors:\n\n1) Anal sex is one of the most reliable ways to transmit the virus due to the physiological makeup of the involved tissue. This is non-gender specific, but male homosexuals generally have more anal sex than heterosexual couples. \n\n\n2) Stigma - gay men are more likely to avoid getting tested for HIV to avoid the stigma associated with it, which makes it a self-reinforcing problem.\n\n\n3) Condom use is far more common in the west, which reduces transfer of the virus. Condoms are often used by heterosexual couples to prevent pregnancy, which also reduces the rate of HIV infection. \n\n\n4) Condoms are LESS common in under-developed countries, so heterosexual sex more frequently spreads the virus. Generally speaking as well, even in western countries - those demographics that are generally economically disadvantaged (and thus less likely to be able to reasonably afford condoms) have higher rates of heterosexual HIV transmission.",
"So, what's not commonly discussed in relation to HIV is that it's actually pretty hard to transmit. Through straight vaginal sex, it's something like a 1 in 1,250 for the women to catch it from the man, and 1 in 2,500 for the man to catch it from the women. Assuming that no condom is used and the man ejaculates inside the women. \n\nHowever, that's not the case with anal sex, where the chances are around 1 in 70 for the \"bottom\" and 1 in 170 for the \"top\". Again, assuming they ejaculate inside.\n\nAnother thing to consider is that the overall immune response of the body. In lower-income countries, they don't have the immune resistance that higher income countries do. Immune systems might be lowered because of other infections in the body or because of poor nutrition or just general poorer health.\n\nSo the rate for a man/women infection in a lower income country is actually much higher, at 1:160 and 1:260 respectively (depending on the direction or transmission, with men having better odds).\n\nI got those numbers from here: _URL_0_\n\nNow, don't go running around having sex without a condom because the odds are not that bad. Human brains are REALLY bad at thinking about the odds of something happening to us. The way statistics feel vs the reality of the situation is often mishandled by the human brain. So just use a condom."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.poz.com/article/HIV-risk-25382-5829"
]
] |
||
3kglel
|
how can median household incomes in an area be ~$50k but average home price be $5m?
|
Namely, Southampton: _URL_0_
How does this work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kglel/eli5_how_can_median_household_incomes_in_an_area/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cux7nvv",
"cux8aj2"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"If you read that page, you will see that the $5M home price was for a specific *part* of that area, and the average income was for the city.\n\nSo, basically, that area is a very upscale part of town that also has other, less affluent neighborhoods.",
"I was raised in the Southampton area. I can say that a large part of it has to do with people summering in the area. Most wealthy people who live in the Hamptons only visit on the weekends and summertime and live in New York City the rest of the year. Those who live there often struggle to get by and live in smaller, more modest homes making a normal salary. Business owners also generally make all their money in July and August and the wealthy are spending a ton at local establishments. \n\nAnd as another poster mentioned, Sagaponack is a small part of Southampton town near the ocean that has one of the most expensive houses in the country, [see it here](_URL_0_). So the average of the entire town is much lover than the 5 million number, but there is still a big difference for the reasons previously stated. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton,_New_York#Demographics"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.thepinnaclelist.com/pics/billionaire-ira-rennert-200-million-hamptons-mansion-one-of-the-largest-homes-in-america/"
]
] |
|
3p0vek
|
Why was the USMC such a small military branch before 1941?
|
They had a superb reputation, not just during WWI, but also at Tripoli. They were formed in 1798 yet it took over 140 years for them to reach their place as a well known fighting unit.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3p0vek/why_was_the_usmc_such_a_small_military_branch/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw2o9dh",
"cw2omsp"
],
"score": [
22,
6
],
"text": [
"Well, I think your question would be better phrased as \"Why did the USMC get so *large* after 1941?\"\n\nIt should be noted that the USMC is totally unique worldwide in terms of size. Every other marine corps in history has been quite small, and this is simply because of the traditional mission of marine corps. \n\nMarines have traditionally acted as naval infantry, boarding/landing parties, and port security. Historically marines have not operated very far from coastal or littoral areas and have not operated on land for extended periods simply because of their role as naval auxiliaries. Because of this, there is simply no reason for any nation to ever have a large marine corps. In fact, since the USMC expanded, there has been a lot of controversy over why the USMC is as large as it is. It has been accused of acting as a second land army and a third air force (duplicating the US Army, USAF, and USN's capabilities), and for this exact reason no other marine corps has expanded like the USMC has.\n\nNow, as for *why* the USMC expanded, a lot of it has to do with the US's need for mobile, rapid response forces post WW2. Naturally, the USMC's relationship with the Navy gave it a unique position to be that forward rapid response force. The US Army has traditionally been the branch with vast, heavy, mechanized forces (almost all of the United States's artillery and armor) that can take a long time to mobilize. Outside of a few units (like the Airborne or SF), the Army can take 30 days or longer to muster its forces for combat. The USMC, under the expeditionary force model, is supposed to be able to provide forward deployed forces that fill the gap in time until heavier Army units can arrive. Marine Expeditionary Forces are designed to sustain combat for about 30 days at a time, which is about the time heavy Army units will take to get to theater. \n\nNow, whether or not this model is still relevant to today's realities is probably outside the scope of this subreddit. But in a nutshell, the USMC was always small because that's what marine corps are traditionally supposed to be according to their missions. The USMC only later expanded because of the need for rapid response forces, but the debate continues on shrinking the USMC because they duplicate many of the capabilities already provided by the other branches. \n\n",
"There are a number of facets to this question, so I'll try to cover as much of it as possible from my background knowledge.\n\nIn World War I, the USMC was used exclusively as traditional land based infantry. A marine really didn't carry out missions any different from an army soldier (read about Belleau Wood and other USMC engagements, and then compare them to engagements in which the Army was involved. Either branch could have just as easily fought the other branches battles), so after the war, the Army started to question whether the Corps deserved to exist on its own.\n\nThe Army argued that the USMC should be rolled into the Army, acting as a division or group of divisions with specialized roles within the army (Similar to how the 10th Mountain operates today, or the 82nd/101st Airborne: division sized units with specialized training and roles). The USMC, as you can imagine, didn't like this at all, and wanted to stay independent.\n\nIn between the wars, there were a series of War Plans that were color coded. Each War Plan was detailed a theoretical war, and how the US might go about prosecuting said theoretical war. These involved wars with Germany, the UK, Canada, various Central and South American countries, Carribean countries, and, most importantly for this question, Japan.\n\nHere's some more info or additional resources on these plans: [link 1](_URL_9_) [link 2](_URL_1_) [link 3](_URL_5_)\n\nWar Plan Orange [link 1](_URL_2_) [link 2](_URL_0_) was the plan detailing a hypothetical war with Japan, and this was the War Plan that the USMC went all in on. I can't say how serious the ideas of folding the USMC into the Army were, since I've never seen any primary sources detailing these conversations, but War Plan Orange was the Corps' baby.\n\nWar Plan Orange more or less necessitated the existence of the Marine Corps, and not just as a small specialized branch of the Army, but as an entire multi-division structure in and of itself, because it projected the necessity of a series of assault landings on islands, and infantrymen who are specially trained and equipped to carry out such landings.\n\nThis idea, of opposed landings on defended beaches, would become the bread and butter of the Corps in between the wars. The Higgins Boat (LCVP) was even developed through a series of trials in the 1930s in order to facilitate these assault landings.\n\nWith the start of World War II, War Plan Orange more or less came true, and the USMC was significantly expanded pursuant of this goal of conducting large scale, and largely independent operations.\n\nSo, that answers why it got so large after World War I. Before that was a different question, and something that I admittedly know less about (and don't have sources on hand for unfortunately).\n\nFor starters, the historical role of the Marines (and really the Marine forces of any country), was as on-board infantry complements on ships to 1) ensure there were trained soldiers on board to conduct both offensive and defensive boarding operations (rather than giving guns and other weapons to poorly trained sailors), and 2) to forcibly prevent mutiny.\n\nNeither of these tasks really require large complements of troops to accomplish. Additionally, the US Navy didn't really start to swell up in size until the fleet overhaul/expansion program spearheaded by Alfred T. Mahan in the second half of the 1800s. [link](_URL_8_) [link](_URL_4_) [link](_URL_3_) [link](_URL_6_) [link](_URL_7_).\n\nThe USMC didn't do much, and therefor didn't need to be big. The famous fighting in the Barbary War? There were a total of 54 Marines *and soldiers* in the theater. At the Battle of Derne, there were a grand total of 8 Marines on the ground, leading a force of mercenaries. This is because there weren't that many Marines available. The US committed ~15% of their total manpower available in the theater for the Battle of Derne, which was the aforementioned 8 people.\n\nThe USMC wasn't used very often, simply because they weren't really needed that much. You didn't conduct opposed assault landings in those days, you just went where the other guys weren't and offloaded your army. \n\nLong story short, the USMC didn't really come into its own until War Plan Orange gave it a purpose. Before then, it was confined to either providing security for Navy ships, or doing the same exact thing that the Army did (fight conventionally on land). It wasn't until they created this defined and specialized purpose for themselves that the USMC became something that *needed* to be big.\n\nSome additional sources:\n\nCraven, Wesley F. and Cate, James L. eds. The Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan: August 1942 to July 1944, vol. 4 of The Army Air Force in World War II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the Air Force Historical Division, 1950.\n\nHunter, Kenneth E., and Margaret E. Tackley. The War against Japan. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 2006.\n\nMiller, Donald L. D-Days in the Pacific. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2005.\n\nMiller, Edward S. War Plan Orange. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991.\n\nSandler, Stanley. World War II in the Pacific: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Pub, 2001\n\nStrahan, Jerry E. Andrew Jackson Higgins and the Boats that Won World War II. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1994.\n\nRottman, Gordon L. World War II Pacific Island Guide: A Geo-Military Study. London: Greenwood Press, 2002.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-orange.htm",
"http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-rainbow.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Orange",
"http://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Military-Weapons/dp/0486255093",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans",
"http://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future/dp/1402159447",
"http://www.amazon.com/From-Sail-Steam-Reflections-Naval/dp/1935585150",
"https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/mahan",
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Rainbow-Planning-1934-1940/dp/1557504091"
]
] |
|
1tiao3
|
Fire in zero oxygen
|
Is it possible to have a gas fire in an area that is completely void of oxygen, like a vacuum. If so, would anything be different about it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1tiao3/fire_in_zero_oxygen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce8jjrj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes, you can definitely have a fire without oxygen. However you would need a different oxidizing agent. For instance fluorine gas reacts with hydrogen gas in [such a fashion](_URL_0_). There would be a number of differences such as the maximum temperature of the flame, how fast the fire would burn, what color the fire would have, etc. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2zP4jxTL4s"
]
] |
|
4ns0n1
|
Did Britain plan an invasion of Norway during WWI?
|
Growing up in Norway, WWII has always dominated the historical narrative. What little education I've received on WWI has been limited to our neutrality, but I've often heard that if the war hadn't ended when it did, Britain would have invaded Norway in order to use the coastline. Can this be verified in any way, or is it pure speculation?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ns0n1/did_britain_plan_an_invasion_of_norway_during_wwi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d46kl94"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There were no such plans that I'm aware of. From 1917, the Allies, mainly as a result of American pressure, began laying a mine barrage across the northern exits to the North Sea. In response to this, the Germans began diverting U-boats through Norwegian waters. These waters were not initially mined, and could not be due to Norwegian neutrality. Instead of planning an invasion of Norway, the Allies brought diplomatic pressure to bear on Norway. The Norwegian Navy was forced to lay mines in the vicinity of Karmoy, completing the North Sea Barrage. This meant that no invasion of Norway was necessary. Other than this, the Norwegian coastline had little strategic significance during the war. \n\nThe majority of British planning for amphibious operations during the war had a primary focus on the German and Belgian coasts. An invasion of islands off the German coast would allow the RN to base ships off the main German naval bases. Plans for invasions of Sylt and Borkum were drawn up in 1914-15, but were cancelled in favour of the Gallipoli landings. Landings on the Belgian coast would allow the British to neutralise the ports at Zeebrugge, Ostend and Bruges, from which German ships and submarines could operate against the shipping routes into London. Several plans were drawn up for this, including one where troops were landed from trawlers in Ostend harbour, and another where troops and tanks would be landed from large pontoons (which I've written much more about [here](_URL_0_)). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/4hz4l4/bacons_folly_the_cancelled_1917_great_landing_in/"
]
] |
|
6apbpc
|
what is the difference between being depressed and being bored?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6apbpc/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhgd2jq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Depression is a sort of relentless apathy. If you're just bored you can dispel the boredom through some form of entertainment easily enough. It's not a constant base state of your existence. Depression on the other hand saps away pleasure as well, leaving just emotional numbness. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ing8z
|
why do people still use yelp, even though they manipulate reviews?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ing8z/eli5_why_do_people_still_use_yelp_even_though/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl3p50o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This post is not asking for a layman-friendly explanation to something complicated or technical, so it doesn't belong here and it's been removed. Entirely subjective questions generally belong in /r/askreddit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3b0rrv
|
How different are mitochondria and other organelles between eukaryotic species?
|
Most animal cells contain the same organelles: mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, and so forth. But how similar are the organelles of one species to those of another? Could a dog cell have a transplanted ER from a cat? What about from a mouse, a bird, or an insect?
If they're reasonably similar, could one organism be cloned by inserting its nucleus into another organism's "blank" egg?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3b0rrv/how_different_are_mitochondria_and_other/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csiaape"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In case of most organelles (Golgi apparatur, ER, peroxisomes, etc.) the main difference is in proteins so if organisms are relativelly close (in evoilutionary terms) there should be no problem in \"transplanting\" say ER of a rat into a dog cells but there MIGHT be a problem if you wanted to transplant ER from a fruit fly to dog's cell. \n\nAnyway since the organelles would be transplanted, all new proteins and lipids would be synthesised as specified in recipient cell's genome so soon enough all proteins and lipids from donor would be degraded and after few cell divisions you would hardly be able to tell a difference between \"normal\" cells and cells originating from recipient.\n\nAs for mitochondria, it has it's own genome and it has it's own genes INSIDE NUCLEAR GENOME. So if there is a specific protein coded inside nuclear genome, you MIGHT have problems with transplanting mitochondria. But again, it all depends on evolutionary distance between organisms. \n\nAs for the last question... Short answear is yes, provided organisms are evolutionary close to each other (e.g. dog and mice). Once you transplant nucleus, all proteins should be synthesised from new DNA and soon enough you won't be able to see the difference between \"normal\" and \"transplanted\" embryos.\n\nAlso in case of nuclear transplant... Recipient cell should have a diffence mechanism against foreign DNA so you would have to knock that out before transplant. And then there would be no need to destro the original nucleus because soon after transplantation, cell would start synthsising defence mechanism from new nucleus which hopefully would destroy old dna."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1lqpka
|
what makes oil, natural gas, and coal sources of energy when other materials aren't?
|
We pump barrels of thick black oil out of the ground and eventually this turns into electricity and heat in my house. How does that happen? What makes oil, natural gas, and coal such great sources of energy when other things that come from the Earth are not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lqpka/eli5_what_makes_oil_natural_gas_and_coal_sources/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc1tavi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hundreds of millions of years ago, because our atmosphere had less oxygen in it, things did not break down as quickly as they do now. You see, nowadays, pretty much anything that is 'organic' is food for something or another. The coal, oils, and gases is the result of all this past uneaten \"food\" being collected and trapped underground where nothing could eat (nothing could utilize its energy); the type of fuel it becomes is heavily dependent on the storage circumstance.\n\n\nNow, why do these things have energy, while rock doesn't? It comes primarily from how we harvest electricity. The most conventional methods include heating up water, which turns into steam, which rotates a turbine, and that creates electricity (it's the spinning motion of the turbine that creates energy). The fuel that we collect primarily goes into heating this water. The reason coal, gas, and oil are used is because they can be used in what is known as a combustion reaction. This is similar to the type of reaction in our bodies when we eat that gives us energy. Notice how these power plants release carbon dioxide (CO2) just like us!? Anyway, this reaction release a lot of heat to boil the water.\n\n\nThis isn't to say 'rocks' cannot be utilized for electricity, however. While a lot of hard rocks like granite are stable, and rarely involve themselves in chemical reactions, some (for instance, uranium in nuclear power plants) still react and can release quite a bit of energy.\n\n\nELI3: Those things are food that weren't eaten millions of years ago. We're digging them up and using them for energy to generate electricity. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2g1yr5
|
How do aquatic plants in places like the Chesapeake bay resist algae buildup on themselves?
|
I was at the bay 2 weeks ago working on a project, and I accidentally left some wire fencing in the water. When I returned a few days ago and took the wire out, there was a huge build up of algae and slimy stuff on it. How do aquatic plants, like eelgrass for example, not get covered in this and die?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2g1yr5/how_do_aquatic_plants_in_places_like_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckewgqg",
"ckez8oo",
"ckfesan"
],
"score": [
10,
17,
3
],
"text": [
"Believe it or not, plants wage extremely intense biological warfare. Most plants secrete compounds that are toxic to other plants and organisms, which helps them establish their roots so that they can obtain nutrients. I don't know what type of plant you are referring to, but this can be seen with terrestrial plants as well. Next time you're talking a walk through the park, stop and look at the base of a tree that is planted in the middle of some grass. Many trees will have a zone around the base where no grass grows. This is because the trees produce compounds that kill the grass to prevent it and other plants from settling in it's territory. ",
"Marine biologist here. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) actually has a very hard time dealing with epiphytic algae growing on them, as they are outcompeted for light. This is actually one of the major causes of the loss of SAV beds in many areas, as eutrophication increases the prevalence and growth rate of said algae. \n\nTldr; they don't",
"Depending on the species there are several different ways. The outer layer of the plan could slowly slough off to keep epiphytic growth down and enable the plant to photo synthesize properly. Some also have a layer of \"slime\" that prevents algae from growing on it. There are also some that rely on other things like fish or snails or crabs to eat the algae off of them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
63t216
|
What evidence is there that women trained in combat sports in Ancient Sparta or other civilizations?
|
I remember reading in a grade six social studies text book that women in ancient Sparta boxed and wrestled. I think this was used to illustrate how warrior-like the whole culture was. At the time it stuck with me, and then years later I became a wrestler and always wondered about my peers from ages ago. Can anyone give me some sources or references? People in the wrestling world would love to hear more about this. While I'm at it, what do we know about wrestling techniques and training methods from Ancient Greece or Rome?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/63t216/what_evidence_is_there_that_women_trained_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfxt2ot"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Evidence for women participating in sport and games is significant, however, women were expressly barred from participating or viewing the Olympic Games. The Heraean Games were a single sex series of events in which women competed against each other, divided by age. Greek society as a rule was repressive towards women however they were allowed to participate in sport while they were young. There was a significant difference drawn between a girl and a woman with girls allowed to train and compete while women were, for the most part, barred. The exception to this rule (as it usually is with Greek society) was Sparta. Sparta allowed women to train as the men did while other cities had a more restrictive repertoire. \n\nTraining for the Olympic Games feel in line with the training undertaken by citizen soldiers for each respective city-state. The Agoge is often referenced as the training regimen of Spartan society, however, the word itself means training; each city had varying Agoge to train their citizens. Varying cities and their colonies could develop reputations for particular events and as such their training would reflect that.\n\nThere were two forms of wrestling during the Ancient Olympics. Palé, standard wrestling similar to today (however far fewer rules and more focus on forcing submission through painful maneuvers) with points won through forcing submission, touching your opponents back if shoulder to the ground, or forcing your opponent from the arena. The Pankration (pronounced pan-kra-tee-on) was the more brutal cousin of Palé with a similarity to modern MMA fighting, with almost no rules. The Pankration had only rules against eye gouging and biting and, with the gradual introduction of the Cestus, became one of the most brutal of events. The Cestus started as a rudimentary boxing glove of leather, however, it developed into a brutal pugilistic weapon with metal/leather lumps or plates woven into the contact surface of the glove (the Romans were involved in developing the brutal nature of the weapon and combat). By this point Cestus fighting was reserved only for slave combatants, often to the death, due to the excessive damage and vicious damage caused by the weapon.\n\nAs for women in Roman games, the Gladiatrix became an extremely popular, albeit somewhat uncommon, combatant. Fighting in the arena was seen as the sole occupation for those of the lowest of classes, however, gladiatricies were often from the highest of classes, equestrian and senatorial, which caused a schism of opinion on their use. Septimius Severus even outlawed their use in the Flavian Amphitheatre due to such disputes, although it has been asserted he did so to avoid comparisons between the Gladiatrix and the women of the Imperial Family. This also appeased the conservative element of Roman society and reaffirmed Septimius' inset it's as a defender of traditional values, harkening back to the golden age of Augustine morality and values. Nevertheless gladiatricies continued to be used throughout the empire in arenas outside of Rome.\n\nTraining and practices of both the Greeks and Romans focused mainly on forcing submissions through exerting pain and pressure on the opponent. Most of the training was for military service which required high levels of stamina and pain tolerance which directed the training. \n\nI am not as well versed on the particular training practices of the Greeks so I cannot provide much in the way of specifics, however, I will do some research and update what and when I can.\n\nPlease excuse any errors as this was typed on mobile. I will also add more sources when I am able to properly quote and cite them.\n\n\nSources:\n\nCruelty and Civilization: The Roman Games by Roland Auguet\n\nHistoria Romana by Cassius Dio\n\nThe Ancient Olympics by Nigel Spivey\n\nMartial's Epigrams"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2rpfvh
|
Other than submitting yourself to Hitler and hating on the Jews, what did the Nazi political party "stand" for? Did they believe in low taxes? Or social welfare? Communism?
|
I'm reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and I can't wrap my head around how Hitler was able to get so many Nazi members elected to congress. What were they promising the people of Germany other than making Germany strong and the arian race pure?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rpfvh/other_than_submitting_yourself_to_hitler_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cni34yg",
"cni9sup",
"cnigfd2"
],
"score": [
58,
40,
3
],
"text": [
"Well here is the 25-point party platform published in 1920. And I believe as late of as 1933 it was unchanged. I'm not sure if Hitler had it changed after that time. But by and large this was representative of the party stances.\n\nEdit: I've been asked by the mods to add a lot more commentary to bring this up to the standards of this sub.\n\nThe platform generally focuses on two major themes: German Nationality and Socialism. But in practice the Nazis were not socialists as we tend to think of them. The goal, as George Orwell might say, was never to make all animals equal. It was explicitly to make some animals more equal than others. The goal was to set up a German state where all Germans shared in the benefits, but non-Germans did not. It was National Socialism.\n\nAnd there are many points that Hitler either compromised on, or never really believed in. So implementation was less than perfect.\n\nIn the first three points we see several issues that led directly to the war. The Nazis wanted to bring all Germans into a Greater German State. This would include those living in Austria and the Sudetenland. They wanted the treaty of Versailles reversed. And they wanted lebensraum (living space) for all these Germans. Eventually Hitler decided he wanted this space to come from Russia.\n\nAfter that we see the seed of the racial laws. Many (most) of these were implemented to some degree or another. And they always fell especially against Jews. But it does make it clear why Hitler formed \"protectorates\" of some areas, rather than outright annexing everything during the war. He wanted a Germany, for Germans, composed of Germans. Bohemians, Moravians, Slovaks, and the like had to have their own little countries to live in... because they weren't welcome in Hitler's Germany.\n\nThen it moves to the socialism in the National Socialist agenda. This was followed poorly at best. There was some nationalization of corporations, most notably in banking and transportation... but it is hard to say that any of these were implemented in any real sense. Although some were. department stores were abolished, so as to protect small business owners.\n\nBut I think the line between points 24 and 25 contains the core of the whole platform: *Public Interest before Private Interest*. That is the core of Nazism, the German state before the individual Germans.\n\n\n\n > The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time.\n\nThe leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.\n\n1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.\n\n2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.\n\n3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.\n\n4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German National.\n\n5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.\n\n6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.\n\nWe oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.\n\n7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.\n\n8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.\n\n9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.\n\n10.\tIt must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.\n\nWe therefore demand:\n\n11.\tThe abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.\n\nBreaking the Servitude of Interest.\n\n12.\tIn view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.\n\n13.\tWe demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).\n\n14.\tWe demand profit-sharing in large enterprises\n\n15.\tWe demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.\n\n16.\tWe demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.\n\n17.\tWe demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.\n\n18.\tWe demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.\n\n19.\tWe demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law\n\n20.\tIn order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.\n\n21.\tThe State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.\n\n22.\tWe demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand: \n\na) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;\n\nb)\tnon-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;\n\nc)\tany financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.\n\nNewspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.\n\n24.\tWe demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race. \n\nThe Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.\n\n25.\tTo carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.\n\nThe Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.\n\nMunich, Germany\n\nFebruary 24, 1920.",
" > I'm reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and I can't wrap my head around how Hitler was able to get so many Nazi members elected to congress.\n\n/u/depanneur explains quite well in [this thread] (_URL_0_) the appeal of Nazi's fascism ideology to its fan. \n\n > The First World War gave fascism its mass base. Veterans across Europe felt alienated in civilian society after the war, which could not understand their experiences on the frontline. A lot of them wanted to return to an idealized comradeship and hierarchy of the front line, which fascist organizations like the SA and the Blackshirts offered. A lot of them didn’t actually care about the nuances of fascist ideology, they just felt like they didn’t belong in civilian society and needed order and comrades. Instead of a real enemy opposing army, fascism offered them a frontline against post-war society which was especially attractive in revisionist countries like Germany and Italy, where many wanted to destroy the existing Liberal order which they blamed for their countries’ humiliations.",
"The National Socialist German Workers' Party arguably stood for everything and nothing and constantly changed. Apart from the whole hating on Jew thing, they did stand for many things officially and unofficially. \n\nAfter World War 1, Germany had massive economic issues including rampant unemployment and hyper-inflation. Inflation during the early-mid 1920s in Germany was perhaps one of the worst cases in history with the currency denominations maxing out in the trillions. Money was essentially not worth the paper it was printed on, and this caused massive economic issues. This was rectified however economic growth was sluggish and unemployment horrendously bad, which lasted right into the early 1930s which is when Hitler gained most of his momentum. This was exploited by Hitler in various ways to gain popularity.\n\nThey stood for a highly centralised and organised labour force, which promised to reinvigorate the economy and reduce unemployment. This was largely achieved as well through large government projects. They also stood for the Lebensraum. This basically was a policy of expanding the available land for exploitation by the Germans, even through aggressive means. This was justified under economic policy and the idea of social Darwinism in that the strong shall prevail over the weak. The grey area is where they stand economically, as they incorporate capitalist and communist ideologies while maintaining, at least officially, an anti-capitalist and anti-communist stance. Many services were privatised and in other areas, government control was absolute. In my opinion, the contrast is that labour was governed publicly by the central government while commerce was independent as long as it supported the parties goals. For some Corporations taxation was non-existent, while for others, it was gargantuan. The best way to sum it up is the economic policy was rarely uniform as it was administered depending on how it might benefit the party. The economic policy never really was consistent throughout the parties existence, and really evolved through time. In a broader sense, they described themselves as a Fascist Party which was used quite liberally as a legitimate political ideal before the term was stigmatised. Of course, propaganda and a cult of personality made Hitler into a godlike messiah type figure. The Fuehrer means the Guide in German, so people largely believed that irrelevant of the official policy, Hitler would guide them to salvation (at least into the late 1930s this was the case). They were relatively anti-religion although they allowed Christianity a bit to distract the masses. They stood for infrastructure projects and a large nuclear German family. They were for militarisation and anti-ww1 reparations. They were trying to aggressively ensure the rights of the working class over the needs of big business. In doing so they were also violently opposed to Communisms and Slavic people in General. I tried to sum this up but I barely scratched the surface. As I mentioned, they stood for different things at different times, and often what was official policy was not necessary what was actually practiced. In general, it can be briefly summed up as pro-working class, anti-communism, anti-jew, pro-military and pro- big government. \n\nRise and Fall of the Third Reich - William L. Shirer"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22ox1w/what_is_fascism/"
],
[]
] |
|
4ngsv7
|
when people read text, do they "hear" it in their minds?
|
I've been telling a certain joke to people. When I tell it verbally, everybody gets it and laughs. but when I text or msg it to them, only half of the people get it. It relies on a verbal /audio pun.
Q: What do Australian astronauts eat when on a mission?
A: Spice rice!
This makes me think that when people read text, some people process it audio-like and some don't. Is there a basis in science for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ngsv7/eli5_when_people_read_text_do_they_hear_it_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d43q24x",
"d43tm19"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. It's called [subvocalization](_URL_0_). Some people \"hear\" words as they are reading them, while others don't. I know I am a subvocalizer because if I try to listen to music with words and read a book at the same time, I can't understand what I'm reading because I'm \"hearing\" two things at once.",
"In this case in particular, it would have to do with accents and word play.\n\nAlthough I do sound out the words in my head as you described, I ***don't*** put accents on it. I use my own (which is a East Coast type) so the joke makes no sense to me. I am also terrible at accents, so I wouldn't know what was trying to be said."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization"
],
[]
] |
|
17es0z
|
How are generics of high-end medications created when pharmaceutical companies can patent their chemical formulas?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/17es0z/how_are_generics_of_highend_medications_created/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c84ti3q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They aren't sold until the patent expires. There is a whole business in slightly altering pharmaceuticals to keep renewing the patent. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
20tjku
|
the nonsense behind the hip-hop illuminati conspiracy theory
|
While I don't doubt for a second that several powerful people gather to make global decisions, I can't imagine what benefit a secret organization would have from leaving clues to their existence in art, especially hip-hop. Well there's a simple answer that it is to brainwash the masses, I don't understand what exactly an all-seeing eye triangle is really suppose to mean if flashed at me in a music video or rumored hand gesture made on stage on a concert. It seems more like creating awareness than brainwashing to me which would be the opposite of what they would want in my eyes. So my question is how did this whole ridiculous thing get started and why do people continue to believe in such a far-fetched idea? Or am I missing some bigger connecting piece?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20tjku/eli5_the_nonsense_behind_the_hiphop_illuminati/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg6l30z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In a nutshell rappers keep mentioning it to make them seem more important than they are. I'm a huge Hip Hop fan, and you can see a lot of rappers are desperate for people to think they are successful (see: huge gaudy chains etc). When you see these images in videos, it's often rappers trying to show they are so powerful, they are in the illuminati. Then people keep talking about it so it never goes away.\n\nKid Cudi actually did a video like this for a joke and the comments were still as ridiculous"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2pl4h6
|
What happens to the gravitational potential energy of mass lost in nuclear fusion?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2pl4h6/what_happens_to_the_gravitational_potential/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmzjmhg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Nothing, since gravitation is based on energy density rather than mass. As long as the energy quanta don't leave the star, its gravitation will remain the same from the outside. When particles leave the star, its gravitation gradually decreases."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
28i8w2
|
why does cat food and dog food smell repulsive while the meat i eat smells delicious.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28i8w2/eli5why_does_cat_food_and_dog_food_smell/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cib7daa",
"cib87ze",
"cib8jbs",
"cib8tvq"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Because dog and cat food consists primarily of ground corn and other fillers which are formed into kibble, baked, and then sprayed with fat to make it palatable. Unless you're talking about canned food, which usually consists of water, fillers, and offcuts. There's no comparison between a handful of kibble or a can of dog food and your steak.",
"Because yours is cooked.\n\nSeriously, a can of unheated chili smells a *lot* like a can of dog food.",
"Speak for yourself, I love the smell of the soft, canned cat treats! But 10 year old me found out that I do not enjoy the taste of soft, canned cat treats. ",
"I actually love the smell of dog food...\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8n0k2o
|
how do scopes work? (firearms)
|
Might should like a stupid question but I guess that’s partly what this subreddit is for. How do scopes accurately portray where the gun is targeting despite being situated above the barrel?
Edit : Thank you for all your responses!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8n0k2o/eli5_how_do_scopes_work_firearms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzrsvy6",
"dzrsxy2",
"dzrt4ge",
"dzrt5mx",
"dzrtkrh",
"dzru3zu",
"dzrummb"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The scopes reticle/crosshairs arnt parrell with the barrel, it aim downwards slightly and meet the travel of the bullet at certain distances. So if you zero your scope for 200 meters. The bullet will travel lower than the point your aiming at untill it hits 200 meters, then it will travel higher untill it drops back below. Here's an image of this._URL_0_",
"The focus point can be adjusted on a scope depending upon the distance that you are attempting to shoot, so that the line from the scope and the line from the barrel crosses at the target.",
"[Copied from another post about this](_URL_1_)\n\nThe scope is set to only be precise at a set distance. You have to adjust it for different distances or expect the misalignment.\n\n[Another, but basically the same picture ](_URL_0_)",
"You don't just slap a scope on top and call it good. Scopes need to be calibrated, called \"zeroing\", making them point slightly downward for how far away you're shooting.",
"Short answer: They don't.\n\nSlightly longer answer: Scopes are \"zeroed\" to particular ranges. This means that the scope is angled slightly down so that when the reticule (The image inside the scope) is pointed at a target a particular range the firearm will be angled upwards just enough to arc the bullet the correct range. \n\nThis is why in some scopes you see multiple horizontal lines, each of those lines is zeroed to a particular range so a shooter just needs to align the appropriate line with the appropriate range and the shot should be angled correctly for that range.\n\nHave a look at zeroing on bow sights, because of the lower projectile speed the sight needs to be more dramatically angled so it is a bit easier to understand, with guns the adjustments are quite small so it's hard to see.",
"The bullet drops while in flight, you align the scope to point slightly downward so it intersects the bullet's path at a given distance. That means the scope is going to be inaccurate at all other distances.\n\nAlso, for most purposes, the inch or two between the scope and the barrel is going to be much less of a factor than the shooter's steadiness and skill. Unless you are a competitive target shooter, getting the bullet within 2 inches of the spot you are aiming for from 100 yards away is going to get the job done.",
"The sights are not parallels to the barrel because the bullet don't fly in a straight line but drops because of gravity. So the barrel point a bit up.\n\nIt looks a bit like [this](_URL_0_)\n\nSo you have to zero the sights at a distance. So rotate the optics or move the reticle so it intersects with the path of the bullet at that distance.\n\nSo for longer distances you have to set the range and change the sights so the barrel point more and more up to hit the target. \n\nIf you fire at a targer closer then the set distance the bullet will be below in the beginning and above the sight for most of the distance. But for a rifle at distances of 100-200 yards the difference is not that high so you will hit the target if it is closer to you. a 5.56 round have a path that is 1 inch from flat and 150 yards. So a sight set to 100 or 200 yards will result in a hit at closer distance\n\nAt longer distances you might start to miss it and have to set the sight as a the same bullet at 500 m start to drop closer to 30 inches at that distance.\n\nSo the offset of the sight is not a problem. That is except for the just after the barrel. If you lay on the ground it is possible that there is a rock in front of the barrel that is not visible in the sights but it is easy to see if you look outside the optics.\n\n\n\nIt is more of a problem if the distance between the sight and barrel is large like in a tank. If you have a hull down position and hide behind a hill and expose as little as possible you have to make sure that the barrel is above the hill to. Early US M4 tanks in WWII only had a sight on the roof so it was hard to determine if they was blocked by the ground so a sight behind the barrel was added in part for the reson to make sure the barrel is clear from the ground."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://goo.gl/images/eTTfQ4"
],
[],
[
"https://azweaponcraftprepper.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/targetshooting3.gif",
"https://i.imgur.com/odL18u2.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bfd0a45b1498653c3e05a212dc2220da-c"
]
] |
|
1x6b5x
|
how come you can "spot increase" muscle (by doing isolation movements) but you can't "spot decrease" fat?
|
As per title.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x6b5x/eli5_how_come_you_can_spot_increase_muscle_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf8h1wi",
"cf8h2er",
"cf8ikr0",
"cf8mxrz"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"As your question implies, if a muscle is isolated then that is the one that will grow. There is no analogous way to isolate fat for consumption. Fat loss occurs throughout the body at equal rates.",
"Different control mechanisms, basically. Muscles respond to a local signal from the nerves, while fat cells respond to global signals found as chemicals in the blood. That allows muscles to work independently of one another but fat cells tend to all take up or release fat together. ",
"When you're doing isolation movements, you need that specific muscle in that specific part of your body to do the work. No other muscle will do. When you burn more calories than you eat, either through diet or exercise, those calories can come from any fat cell. They all provide the same amount of energy.\n\nPerhaps you're asking, though, why our bodies don't build up muscle all over when we do isolation exercises? Muscle takes a lot of energy to grow. Energy that our bodies could have been using for other things, like reproduction. There's evolutionary advantage in not building muscle until you need it, and then not building muscles larger than you will use, in the places you will use them.\n\nThere is no evolutionary advantage in only building fat in specific places. You need the energy in the fat, but it's placement isn't important to that. Fat cells in your face and your butt provide the same amount of energy. In fact, I suspect that fat distribution is optimized for a different task: locomotion. I don't have any scientific literature to support this, and it's just a hypothesis on my part, but I think fat is distributed in such a way as to keep people moving efficiently. People can have a huge variety in body shapes, from almost no body fat on the low end to having as much fat as other body tissues combined, and they can still move around pretty well. No one has all their fat concentrated at their legs or at their head, it's all pretty evenly distributed, and people can still move around pretty well, minus a bunch of other health consequences. That's what it seems fat is optimized for, and if you could spot remove fat, you'd be likely to make yourself unbalanced in various ways.",
"When you're lifting something from the table to your face, the only muscles used are the biceps in your arms. Muscles grow when they are stimulated by a workout. In this case, you are only stimulating the biceps. All the other muscles are idle and are not getting any stimulation. It's only the biceps that grow.\n\nWhen you run or cycle for hours and hours, and you're low on energy, your body sends signals to the fat-storing cells to release the stuff they have in storage. The signals are chemical in nature, and via the bloodstream they go to your whole body. Fat all over your body is decreased."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
85ktca
|
why are some plates and cutlery not dishwasher safe?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/85ktca/eli5_why_are_some_plates_and_cutlery_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvy5hyd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pots and pans are usually excluded because they are made of materials that react with the harsher chemicals used in a dishwasher (Just like a human hand would be damaged). As a result, they will be damaged.\n\nOther things, like some glassware, are so fine that rattling in the dishwasher is enough to make them bump against something and crack and break.\n\nKnives will rattle against their rack and dull themselves out from repeated blunt impact to the side."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1srpqh
|
after giving blood, is it harder to gain and/or maintain an erection?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1srpqh/eli5_after_giving_blood_is_it_harder_to_gain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce0l6pw"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"No, our bodies very quickly compensate to keep blood pressure the same despite a loss of volume. One way is to just increase the fluid content of the blood, thinning it out until more blood cells can be made. Another is to constrict the blood vessels, decreasing the total volume of the circulatory system.\n\nBut ultimately gaining an erection is performed by your body restricting the flow of blood out of the penis's tissue. That works pretty well if you have a strong heart regardless of a slight blood pressure drop."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
140owq
|
silly math regarding supermassive black holes and average density.
|
So, regarding the new largest ever black hole that's been discovered... I was doing some math. Badly, likely. Can someone proof this? This is not homework, and was done for fun on another thread.
The diameter of the event horizon for the new black hole was estimated to be about the size of the orbit of Neptune, or 4 light-days, which would give us a radius of...
r= 51,804,136,742,400 m (299,792,458 m/s x 60sec x 60min x 24 x 2)
and pi is 3.14159265359
so the volume of the event horizon would be 26,486,747,264,016,772,492,836,761,361 cubic meters.
If that's correct, we can move on.
The current heavyweight comes in at 17 Billion solar masses.
1.9891 × 10^30 kg (suns mass) x 17,000,000,000 = 33,814,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.
So, the average density of that event horizon volume would be 1,276,664,879,342 kg/m3 if my shitty math is correct. It probably isn't.
Now, this conflicts with things I've heard, that the average densities of supermassive black holes are in fact very light, some even lower than water. That doesn't jive with my ad-hoc calculations. Any input?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/140owq/silly_math_regarding_supermassive_black_holes_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c78tpym"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > Now, this conflicts with things I've heard, that the average densities of supermassive black holes are in fact very light, some even lower than water.\n\nI thought this was totally wrong at first, but then I [ran the numbers myself in wolfram alpha](_URL_0_) and got a density drastically lower than water. Things I never knew before!\n\nAs for your math, I think you may have made an error in calculating the volume. Since the radius is about 5 x 10^13 m, and the volume V = (4 pi r^3 )/ 3, the volume should be something like 6 x 10^41 cubic meters, which is way higher than what you have in your post.\n\nThis refers only to the average density within the event horizon; it is thought that the mass actually all piles up in the center (possible/probably in a singularity with infinite density).\n\nedit: in general, since the Schwarzschild Radius of a black hole is 3 km per solar mass, the volume is proportional to the cube of the mass, so higher-mass black holes will have lower densities."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2817+billion+solar+masses%29%2F%28%284*pi%2F3%29*%2851+billion+km%29%5E3%29"
]
] |
|
2o8jk8
|
why am i "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", but only found "not guilty" and not "innocent"?
|
Presumption of Innocence is "a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence." So by definition, I am relieved of any burden to prove my innocence...not my 'not guilty-ness'.
**EDIT**: Not sure what all the down-votes are for; I thought my arguments were reasonably stated. In any case, thanks to everyone who contributed something positive to the conversation. It was a fun discussion!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o8jk8/eli5_why_am_i_innocent_until_proven_guilty_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmkqkot",
"cmkqnlz",
"cmkrere",
"cmku1b2"
],
"score": [
17,
8,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"You (and your lawyer) are under no obligation to prove your innocence, nor your \"not-guilty mess.\" The onus (burden) is on the prosecution to prove that you are guilty, and your job is to refute their accusations and show, if possible, that they can't be true.\n\nThat's what presumption of innocence means. If nobody shows that you're guilty, then there's no reason to believe guilt; you're \"not guilty.\" The prosecution has to prove you are guilty well enough that you can't poke holes in their accusations, otherwise we default to our presumption.",
"To add to what others have said already - if we find you \"not guilty\", we *treat* you as if you're innocent. That's what the phrase \"innocent until proven guilty\" means.\n\nThat doesn't mean you *are* innocent, and we'd never *say* you're innocent, because you haven't proven that, nor is there any requirement for you to prove it.",
"You aren't innocent, you are *presumed innocent\", mean the burden is to prove your guilt.\n\nIf the prosecution fails to do this, they didn't find you guilty. They didn't find you innocent, because you were already presumed innocent, and because the proceedings didn't prove your were innocent, just that there was insufficient evidence to prove your guilt.",
"You aren't taken to court because you are not innocent. You're in court because you are accused of being guilty. The court sees that you are being accused, and places the burden of proof on the accuser.\n\nThe accuser shows the court why he/she/it thinks you are guilty, and the court makes the decision whether or not you are guilty based on his proof.\n\nBeing told to show up in court is not being treated as guilty, it is simply where the accuser shows his proof, and you show why he is wrong."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
63hdi6
|
growing up my mother always told me to never start a pot of boiling water from hot tap water only cold. what's the logic behind that if any?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63hdi6/eli5_growing_up_my_mother_always_told_me_to_never/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfu3q0o",
"dfu3sfl",
"dfu4xzi",
"dfu5aie",
"dfu78c1",
"dfu7gmz",
"dfu8oh1",
"dfu9a0j",
"dfu9ffz",
"dfua40k",
"dfua6i8",
"dfuamrq",
"dfuaufd",
"dfub55j",
"dfubzu5",
"dfuc066",
"dfucjgb",
"dfucz0y",
"dfudrll",
"dfuej9u",
"dfueo8w",
"dfuexjv",
"dfufffr",
"dfug0s1",
"dfug7wc",
"dfuga60",
"dfugf89",
"dfugi5j",
"dfuhd6t",
"dfuhefj",
"dfui6ry",
"dfuifda",
"dfuiwqr",
"dfuj0js",
"dfuj8jk",
"dfujirg",
"dfujq8j",
"dfujsh7",
"dfujwoh",
"dfujyof",
"dfuk2si",
"dfuk2yi",
"dfuk30w",
"dfuk4w8",
"dfuk76m"
],
"score": [
1880,
20,
20,
730,
2,
3,
505,
5,
2,
652,
5,
448,
20,
20,
4,
119,
15,
2,
4,
2,
32,
3,
2,
5,
3,
2,
9,
4,
21,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
6,
2,
9,
3,
3,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In the past, hot water was stored in a separate holding tank where it was kept heated. This water was not necessarily \"safe\" for drinking as the same water could be sitting for days at a time. \n\nI've also heard that old lead pipes leach lead into hot water, but not into cold water. This explains why hot water would be fine for bathing, laundry, etc., but not for consumption. Can anyone verify this? \n\nIt's safe now (unless you live in a very old house), but in the past people had to be careful of these things. ",
"The logic is hot water is more likely to have lead from your pipes (back when people thought your water pipes contain lead). Since the water is hot, it would be more likely to have a little bit of lead that came off the pipes due to the heat of the water. \n\nToday, plumbing pipes can't legally contain lead but the logic still remains that in case the hot water is hot enough to attract pieces of your pipes in it then cold water is a safer bet, but overall isn't an issue nowadays AFAIK.",
"Hot water comes from a tank that can be full of scale/rust/dust that constantly gets topped up whenever you use the hot tap so just from that standpoint it doesn't seem like a good idea.",
"Answering from a British perspective, traditionally only the kitchen cold tap got water directly from the supply. The supply also fed a cold water storage cistern in the loft that then fed the bathroom cold taps and the hot water storage cylinder, which in turns feeds the hot water taps. Sometimes instead all the cold taps got a direct supply and the storage cistern was just for feeding the hot water cylinder. Now that storage cistern isn't sealed airtight, although it should have a lid. That means that dirt, insects, and so on (even a rat, in one reported case) can get into the cistern especially if the lid is missing and that means that any tap fed from it isn't properly safe to drink. It's *probably* fine, I drank from the bathroom taps all the time as a child and never got sick, but better safe than sorry.\n\nIf the kitchen cold tap is noticeably forceful, whereas all the other taps flow more gently, then your house probably has a system like this.\n\nEDIT PS: I don't know exactly why that system became the most common, but an advantage is you probably have about 300 litres (80 US gallons) of water stored, useful if the mains supply is cut.",
"The water at my house gets so hot it'll literally burn skin, even if it has added sediment it's so hot it boils faster ",
"Pipes tend to pick up sediment over time. Hot water is better at dissolving that sediment then cold water, so if you run the water hot it might pick up junk from the sides of your pipes that can affect the taste of whatever you're cooking. Cold water doesn't do that as much.",
"If you've ever seen an old hot water tank drained to the bottom, you'll understand why she wanted to use cold water. It's a thick, rust coloured sludge by the end, and I live in a place that doesn't have hard water.\n\nCold water = fresh from the water supply, less sediment, less risk of bacteria from sitting around nice and warm.",
"It's a psychological or folkloric holdover from older plumbing systems that offered both cold and hot water, indoors. [Here's a video](_URL_0_) with an explanation of the system and the reasoning.\n",
"Since when does cold water boil faster than hot water?\nWhat hair-brained school did you people go to?",
"Here in Iceland we got natural hot water and it has silica in it which tastes awful so if you need hot water for drinking, you heat up the cold water ",
"There are a few reasons.\n\nModern homes now have \"pex\" piping which is a type of plastic, hot water dissolves more of the bad plastic stuff.\n\nVery old piping used to contain lead, which again, dissolves more rapidly in hot water.\n\nWater tanks can hold water for a long time, this is not an issue for bacteria since the water should be warm enough to effectively be pasteurized but it does give it more time to dissolve chemicals.\n\nThe difference between hot and cold tap water isn't poison vs safe, hot water simply contains a tiny fraction more of chemicals you do not necessarily want in your water.",
"If you're referring to speed of heating, it's not scientifically correct. I don't have an in depth knowledge, but have read about it. And think about it logically. If you have a pot of water at 0° and a pot at 50° and heat them both, eventually the water that was 0° will rise to 50°. So how is that different than using water starting at 50°? \n\nThis is an excerpt from Scientific American Magazine:\n\nTakamasa Takahashi, a physicist at St. Norbert College in De Pere, iWis., attempts a definitive answer:\n\n\"Cold water does not boil faster than hot water. The rate of heating of a liquid depends on the magnitude of the temperature difference between the liquid and its surroundings (the flame on the stove, for instance). As a result, cold water will be absorbing heat faster while it is still cold; once it gets up to the temperature of hot water, the heating rate slows down and from there it takes just as long to bring it to a boil as the water that was hot to begin with. Because it takes cold water some time to reach the temperature of hot water, cold water clearly takes longer to boil than hot water does. There may be some psychological effect at play; cold water starts boiling sooner than one might expect because of the aforementioned greater heat absorption rate when water is colder.\n\n ",
"The hot water picks up minerals and, worst of all, lead from the solder in the pipes. Cold water picks up less of that",
"Cold Water = Water coming straight from the source through PEX pipe. \n\nHot Water = Water coming through the source, into a hot water boiler via some copper piping, from there it could sit in that tank for a couple days depending on how much you use your hot water. ",
"If you are from Britain, this seems like a good answer: _URL_0_\n\ntl;dr: Cold Water used to be directly from city, while Hot Water used to have a separate tank that could've gotten contaminated.",
"_URL_0_\n\n > The claim has the ring of a myth. But environmental scientists say it is real.\n\n > The reason is that hot water dissolves contaminants more quickly than cold water, and many pipes in homes contain lead that can leach into water. And lead can damage the brain and nervous system, especially in young children.\n\n > Lead is rarely found in source water, but can enter it through corroded plumbing. The Environmental Protection Agency says that older homes are more likely to have lead pipes and fixtures, but that even newer plumbing advertised as “lead-free” can still contain as much as 8 percent lead. A study published in The Journal of Environmental Health in 2002 found that tap water represented 14 to 20 percent of total lead exposure.",
"This actually comes from the fact that lots of older homes didn't use potable water systems for their hot water. Particularly in Briton, where the radiators also rand from the same boiler as the hot tap.\n\nThis is also why older systems had left-and-right taps and spigots instead of a combining valve or tap.\n\nSo in modern times in modern homes it probably doesn't matter.\n\nThe tales of old wives will, however, last forever.",
"There's a very simple reason not to drink hot water: Hot water may contain higher levels of lead than cold water, since the hot water dissolves more lead from old pipes and solder than cold water does. There may also be a reservoir of lead precipitates sitting in the bottom of the water heater, which will (potentially) increase the amount of lead even further, depending on the kinetics of dissolution.\n\nSource: am chemist, deal with lead in water nowadays (among other things).",
"This has got to be nonsense. Someone with some actual scientific knowledge please set this straight. The lining of a hot water tank is ceramic. There shouldn't be anything dissolving into it. It should be exactly (or nearly exactly) identical to cold water only it's hotter. I'm no physicist but my rudimentary high school and college science classes have given me enough knowledge to know that hot water should boil much faster than cold water.",
"In most cities, municipal cold water supply coming into the house. \n\nIt gets split off in two in the house. One to the cold water pipes, the other to a hot water heater.\n\nUp until 1986, hot water heaters and the copper pipes have lead solder joining things together. Hot water can leach the lead out faster especially so if its sitting in pipes and a tank for long periods of time in contact with it.\n\nEven if you grew up in the 90s, you likely were in a house that was older and built before the mid 80s. ",
"Everyone already answered, but I'd like to add that this advice doesn't apply if you have a tankless water heater. Since that water also comes straight from the service and hasn't been sitting around in a tank, it's perfectly fine to use that, and will speed up the process since it needs less energy on the stove. Just make sure it's straight tankless and doesn't have a recirculator.",
"It's cheaper. Notice how when you use hot water from a tank, you have to run the water for 20 seconds before it becomes hot. That water is effectively wasted hot water even though it is now cold. This is because it came out of the hot water tank as hot but it was cooled by the pipes that brought it to your tap. You are paying the electrical bill for heating that volume of water that came out before the water out your tap turns hot. You can see how it is wasteful and expensive to frequently use small volumes of hot water.",
"It's the mistaken belief that cold water boils quicker because the molecules are in a denser state the colder the water is. They are conveniently forgetting that you have to warm the water to the same point the other(hot) water was before continuing on to boiling.\n\nI've seen this amazing logic at work, so I could see others doing the same thing.",
"The only reason I am personally cautious about using hot tap water is because [there may be lead in your water supply.](_URL_0_) \n\nIf your pipes or the solder connecting them contain lead, hot water adds to the corrosion that increases lead levels in the water.\n\nYou may think that it is unlikely your pipes contain any lead, but you are probably wrong. \n\nFrom the link above:\n\"While homes built before 1986 are the most likely to have lead plumbing, it can be found in newer homes as well. Until two years ago, the legal limit for \"lead-free\" pipes was up to 8% lead.\n\nAs of January 1, 2014, all newly installed water faucets, fixtures, pipes and fittings must meet new lead-free requirements, which reduces the amount of lead allowed to 0.25%. But that doesn't apply to existing fixtures, such as what is found in many older homes and public water suppliers\"\n\nWhether or not your mother was aware of this concern, I think it's a compelling one and a good thing she taught you not drink the hot tap water! It may be one of the factors why we have to explain to each other like we're 5 all the time!",
"[Tom Scott did a great vid on this topic.](_URL_0_) Not sure what part of the world you come from though.",
"My mother told me it is unsafe to drink from hot water storage because of Legionnaires' disease. Legionnaires' disease is caused by Legionella bacteria which can contaminate hot water tanks and hot tubs. \n",
"Something everyone else overlooked: The water heater probably has (they have been this way for decades) a Sacrificial Anode which is a metal rod designed to dissolve to reduce the charge of other metals, thereby inhibiting rust inside the tank parts and rest of the system. When it dissolves, where does it go? \n \n_URL_1_\n \n_URL_0_",
"The water comes into your home drinkable. How it gets from that drinkable state, to your faucet and into your glass, matters. Water is a solvent. Put it in contact with many different materials like copper, lead and tin and it will tend to leach those elements into the water. The ability to do this goes up with temperature. \n\nIn addition to that the hot water heater is a place where sediments and minerals are deposited and over the years they build up until the hot water has large amounts of dissolved metals and minerals in it. \n\nIt's not exactly unsafe to drink, but it affects the flavor of anything you make with it and over time you are going to get a lot more exposure to metals and minerals in your food. \n\nA hot water heater is not a coffee maker. It does not heat the water up so that you can enjoy a cup of tea. It is not a clean system, it is there for utility like clothes washing, showers, and other non drinking uses. \n\nYou could also choose to drink water from a garden hose, but it is a little more apparent there, that what the water moves through imparts a taste to it. Namely the taste of garden hose much like the taste of water heater. ",
"I'll attempt to sum up all the reasons:\n\n1. Lead and other contaminants dissolve much more easily in hot water. This can lead to unwanted tastes, and could possibly build up to harmful amounts of chemicals in the bloodstream if consumed routinely.\n\n2. The hot water tank isn't necessarily a clean place. A sludge made of minerals and bacteria can easily form. Additionally, in Britain, [the hot water from the tank isn't rated as potable water.](_URL_0_)\n\n3. The old myth that cold water heats faster.\n\n4. Water heaters are less efficient than heating water on the stove because of all the water that gets pulled out of the tank and just sits there cooling in the pipes.\n\nIf you want to make your water boil faster, boil some of it in an electric kettle or the microwave while letting the rest heat on the stove.",
"This is if your house has a big water heater tank. In order to keep the hot water tank from corroding an anode rod is placed in side as a sacrificial component. The anode metal, magnesium or aluminum most likely, that dissolves from the rod is now floating around your tank making the water taste funky and making you ingest metal particles that you most likely wouldn't get from your cold water supply",
"Hot water can be dusty due to storage or other things depending on the heating system. Cold water usually has a shorter path with less stagnation",
"It's simply because in some water systems your hot tap sits in a tank (in the loft usually) whereas the cold tap is 'fresh' water. \n\nsource: have asked lots of old people why they say this",
"There is no scientific explanation which says that using cold water is better than starting with hot water if you want to boil it. If you start with hot water it will boil sooner. If there are more solutes in the hot water from the tap they raise the boiling point of water by a fraction of a degree so they do not matter. However the electric water heaters we use have a sacrificial anode made of either one of these metals: magnesium, zinc or aluminium. They dissolve slowly thus protecting the main structure of the heater from corrosion. They end up in the water from the hot water tap. Their concentration is very low but zinc and aluminium might cause some people to be worried.",
"Because hot water + gas required to boil it costs more than cold water + gas required to heat it.",
"Historically in England the hot water tanks were not sealed so nasty stuff could get into the tank (insects, rats, dirt, etc). The cold water came straight from the pipes so was safe.\n\nFor this reason the English (some still now!) are hesitant to drink water from the hot tap, and even tend to have separate hot and cold taps (instead of a 'mixing' tap that combines the water).\n\nIt could be an actual concern that the hot-tap water is tainted, or a cultural memory from when that was in fact true.",
"Added sediment/particulates/chemicals from the water heating system. Stuff that raises the boiling point, and also things you may not want in your food.",
"They tell you on every Alton Brown episode like ever! It sits in your water heater and gets all manky and gross while it's waiting to be used. Cold water, not so much. People are really over thinking this.",
"TL;DR: You are filling your pipes with hot water that you paid to heat but will never get to use. \n\nQuestions of chemistry and water freshness aside, there is a reasonable energy waste consideration here. \n\nIf your water heater is not located at your faucet, you need to run your hot water until heated water reaches the faucet. That means you need to fill all of the pipes in between your hot water heater and your aucet woth heated water. Right when those pipes are filled you start to feel warm water. Its not hot elyet because the cold pipes it travelled through cooled it off. \n\nNow if you are like me you wait until the really hot water comes out. This is essentially running more hot water until the pipes are heated and no longer cool the water. \n\nNow you fill your kettle. And leave your pipes full of hot water that will cool over time unless used relatively soon. \n\nIf you held a bucket under the faucet from start until when you begin filling the kettle you would be able to measure the amount of heated water that is wasted in this transaction. \n\nThe money you spent to heat all of that water is lost unless you use the heated water that is left sitting in the pipes for some other task you would normally do this avoiding that beginning filling and heating of the pipes waste.\n\nIf you fill the kettle with cold water, you only pay to heat the water you put in the kettle. \n\nThere are some other things to think about like efficiency of your hot water heater vs that of your stove, but I have always made the assumption that the potential efficiency difference would not counter the cost of the waste.",
"Just anther theory...\n\nMany homes with water softeners don't connect the softener to the kitchen cold line for drinking purposes. \n\nSoftened water has less essential minerals such as calcium, it tastes a lot worse too. So ideally, you wouldn't want to drink softened water for taste and nutrition.\n\nThis carries over with cooking. It makes a surprising difference with drinks like coffee. But to that end, the hot-water is always connected to the water softener, because that's what you use to wash dishes. Hard water leaves nasty water spots.",
"Hey /u/blank8855, Tom Scott made a great 3min video on this subject:\n_URL_0_\n\nTL;DW - hot water storage tank may not be drinkable in the UK.\n\nAlso explains why there's no mixer taps in old UK houses.",
"Holy Jesus I only made it through the first 100 or so comments and all of them were people who have no idea what they're talking about acting like absolute authorities (and karma whoring on the top comment to reiterate the same wrong points of course). Makes me really question believing anything I read here.",
"Well the Idea is that the heat from your burner transfers to the cold water faster as the difference in temperature is greater. So at first heat is transferred faster to the cold water. It is not actually faster. I am sure that someone told someone that cold things rise in temperature faster than hotter things, and then promptly tuned them out.\n ",
"\"Clean with hot, cook with cold\" is something our manager used to say often at a restaurant I worked at when I was a kid. Not much to add to the explanations already given, but just a simple and relevant anecdote that has stuck with me.",
"Growing up my mother told me someday I would buy. galley with good oars, sail to distant shores. Stand up high in the prow, noble barque I steer. Steady course for the haven, hew many foe, hew many foe. ",
"This happened to me...\n\nI was doing a freezer repair at a customer's home and needed hot water to melt the ice built up inside the freezer. Lady puts a pot on the stove and its taking for fucking ever to get hot. I asker her if she used cold water or something and she's like \"Of course! Everyone knows you can't boil hot water\". What the fuck kind of logic is that?! \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA"
],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/health/29real.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/health/lead-testing-home-drinking-water/"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA"
],
[],
[
"https://www.familyhandyman.com/plumbing/water-heater/extend-the-life-of-your-water-heater-by-replacing-the-anode-rod/view-all",
"https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Analytical_Chemistry/Electrochemistry/Case_Studies/Corrosion/Sacrificial_Anode"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
n5sn6
|
how the eurozone is facing economic crisis yet the euro remains stronger than the dollar.
|
Could exchange rates be used as a yardstick for which economy is growing faster or which one is stronger? I ask because the news I read seems to indicate that the Eurozone crisis is more dire than the US's economic problems. Is that more of a legal crisis than economic one? Boy, I'm just full of questions.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n5sn6/eli5_how_the_eurozone_is_facing_economic_crisis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c36j55t",
"c36j55t"
],
"score": [
9,
9
],
"text": [
"When an economy is doing badly, governments have two common answers: make their money worth less, so people from other countries start buying their stuff, and borrow money to spend, to make sure people in their own country have jobs. Governments can afford to borrow this money, *because* they are also devaluating their currency (when you borrow 100 Euro's, and the Euro becomes worth less, you end up with less debt, despite the fact it's still 100 Euro's).\n\nWhat the Euro does, however, is take away from governments the possibility to devaluate a currency by giving this responsibility to the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB hasn't been devaluating the currency, mostly because countries like Germany don't want it to (they're doing fine, so they *want* a strong currency).\n\nSo now investors are getting scared that countries that would usually handle their problems by devaluating their currency, cannot do this, so might end up not paying their debt. This is what is causing the trouble.",
"When an economy is doing badly, governments have two common answers: make their money worth less, so people from other countries start buying their stuff, and borrow money to spend, to make sure people in their own country have jobs. Governments can afford to borrow this money, *because* they are also devaluating their currency (when you borrow 100 Euro's, and the Euro becomes worth less, you end up with less debt, despite the fact it's still 100 Euro's).\n\nWhat the Euro does, however, is take away from governments the possibility to devaluate a currency by giving this responsibility to the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB hasn't been devaluating the currency, mostly because countries like Germany don't want it to (they're doing fine, so they *want* a strong currency).\n\nSo now investors are getting scared that countries that would usually handle their problems by devaluating their currency, cannot do this, so might end up not paying their debt. This is what is causing the trouble."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3sybb4
|
as seen in movies, can you actually run and jump on top of and across moving train cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sybb4/eli5_as_seen_in_movies_can_you_actually_run_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx1ftbn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nof course you can. Its just hilariously dangerous and theres never a reason to actually do it"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3c67AYl0rM"
]
] |
||
76r86o
|
today in britain, the sky went really orange for a few hours - why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76r86o/eli5_today_in_britain_the_sky_went_really_orange/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dog2ota",
"dog2q47",
"dog2s41",
"dog2sik",
"dog2y5d",
"dog39px",
"dog3p5o"
],
"score": [
15,
15,
41,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Not sure if related, but Portugal and northwest Spain are having a huge number of forest fires going on causing a lot of ashes and smoke, turning the sky orange in most places nearby. are you south of Britain? \n\nedit: _URL_0_\n\nedit2: this was Spain, not Britain, just in case ",
"I understand it was something to do with dust picked up by the hurricane in the Sahara desert, carried into the air and the sun shining through this dust cloud that caused the yellow hue.",
"I've found out what it was - orange-ish dust has been picked up by Hurricane Ophelia and spread across the atmosphere.",
"Yeah, it’s been gooin’ t’same up er in t’north anarl me ol’ frock. Reet unnervin’ it’s been too!!",
"I noticed this in scotland. I wondered what was causing this but the hurricanes seem plausible.",
"So you're really going to post this question and not post a picture of the orange sky? ",
"No expert, but I did do some googling because it was pretty freaky out the window. Best explanation I got was:\n\nThere's large amount of particulates and water-vapour in the air before a storm, carried with it from where ever the storm was last. This causes the light passing through it to be filtered, and short-wave light from the blue end of the spectrum is filtered out more than longer wave, redder light, so the sky gets more yellow/orange.\n\nThis is why we get red skies at sunset and sunrise. The light, by virtue of not being shone from directly above us, has to travel through lots more air before reaching your eyes, passes through more particulates, and ends up redder."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://i.imgur.com/QXgeNsk.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
34fb2i
|
How accurate is the portrayal of a sadistic slave owner whom would whip and beat his slaves for seemingly trivial stuff?
|
How correct is the portrayal we see in popular culture? Did slaves cost relatively a lot of money? Did it make sense to treat these human assets so harshly?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34fb2i/how_accurate_is_the_portrayal_of_a_sadistic_slave/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqv6qbj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is abundant evidence that maltreatment ([whipping](_URL_1_), and [worse](_URL_0_)) of slaves was not uncommon, [NSFW](_URL_3_). However, whenever you see a movie like *Django Unchained* for example, you have to realize that whatever their historical motivations, the movie makers have to tell a story in 2 hours, and that violence and brutality are entertainment ... so they will make sure to pack everything needed to tell their story into those two hours, which will likely include enough abuse to cover a much longer period of time. This isn't unique to portrayal of slavery; almost every war movie is the same in that they overemphasize the amount of time spent in combat vs just sitting around. That's where the entertainment is. \n\nGiven the economic value of slaves (great article [here](_URL_2_); see figure 4), it's very unlikely that slaves were constantly beaten. As another article put it (paraphrasing), \"there was a rapid and constant background negotiation between owners and slaves as to the least amount of work that the slaves could do without getting whipped, and the amount of whipping that was needed to get the required work done\". Again, paraphrased. \n\nThis is not in any way an apologia for the brutality of slavery in the United States. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Thumb-Screw-Slave-Trade//1",
"http://spartacus-educational.com/USASwhipping.htm",
"http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php",
"http://spartacus-educational.com/USASwhipping.jpg"
]
] |
|
6sq2c5
|
I have heard that H. P. Lovecraft came to regret his racist views later in his life. Is this true?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6sq2c5/i_have_heard_that_h_p_lovecraft_came_to_regret/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlezzuw",
"dlf83h5"
],
"score": [
380,
75
],
"text": [
"It's hard to answer the question of how someone felt inside, but to the extent we can judge a man's feelings and thoughts based on his words, the answer is no, he didn't. Or, at least, he didn't state in a public way that he did.\n\nS.T. Joshi, certainly one of Lovecraft's most devoted historians, biographers, and, it must be said, fans, admits in his biography *A Dreamer and a Visionary: H.P. Lovecraft in His Time* that not only were Lovecraft's racism, anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism, and snobbery atypically vitriolic for his own time, but that Lovecraft failed to keep step with the generality of America as it moved away from said vitriol about race and culture:\n\n > \"There is no denying the reality of Lovecraft's racism, nor can it merely be passed off as \"typical of his time,\" for it appears that Lovecraft expressed his views more pronouncedly (although usually not for publication) than many others of his era. It is also foolish to deny that racism enters into his fiction.\"\n\nJoshi goes on to recount an episode of correspondence between Lovecraft and a Mr. Charles D. Isaacson, in 1915, in which Lovecraft attacked Isaacson for espousing views of racial tolerance and for Isaacson's attacking the new film *Birth of a Nation* for stoking racial violence (Joshi, p. 97-99). Isaacson wrote back, publicly attacking Lovecraft for \"[being] against tolerance of color, creed and equality, uphold[ing] race prejudice…\" \n\nClearly, even in 1915, people's attitudes were shifting, but Lovecraft was doubling down on his viewpoints, even regressing on some. Indeed, his private writings, of which there are many thousands of letters over the course of his life, are virtually universally negative on non-WASP white ethnic groups such as German immigrants, Irish, and Catholics when he discusses them at all. \n\nPart of this, it must be said (and Joshi points out), was almost certainly wrapped up in Lovecraft's Anglophilia and the 18th-century mannerisms and character which he affected for himself. As Lovecraft's friend Wilfred Branch Talman noted: it was only natural that a poseur of an 18th-Century English aristocrat should affect an attitude of racism and ethnic superiority, after all (Callaghan, p. 8). And because these attitudes were wrapped up very much in the way Lovecraft saw himself and the way he wanted to portray himself to the world -- and, indeed, in his writing, which is festooned with Anglicisms and archaisms -- he never really let go of them, even in later life. \n\nNow, Joshi does argue that Lovecraft's viewpoints were more *ethnocentric* (or, to use a contemporary term, \"nativist\") than outright racist, as Lovecraft did sometimes express tolerance, or even praise, for groups he felt were \"well assimilated.\" (Joshi, *A Subtler Magick: The Writings and Philosophy of H. P. Lovecraft.* pp. 107-108). Indeed, Lovecraft married a Jewish woman, Sonia Greene, who had emigrated to the U.S. as a child from Russia. So he was, at least, willing to make exceptions to his rules when he felt the candidate was culturally assimilated enough -- or when it suited him. It is worth noting, perhaps, that the marriage did not last.\n\nTo sum up, there is nothing in Lovecraft's letters or in his works of fiction -- which consistently demonstrate racist tendencies, such as portraying African natives as pseudo-beast-men -- to show that his attitudes toward race tempered or that he came to regret them, despite the changes in general American attitudes going on around him. He died at only 46, so he may not have had time to reach the age of reflection. Or, perhaps he simply held the beliefs too strongly for various personal reasons.\n\n**Sources**\n\n* Callaghan, Gavin: *H.P. Lovecraft's Dark Arcadia: The Satire, Symbology and Contradiction* (2013)\n\n* Joshi, S.T.: *A Subtler Magick: The Writings and Philosophy of H. P. Lovecraft. (1996); *A Dreamer and a Visionary: H.P. Lovecraft in His Time.* (2001)",
"Lovecraft's views on race did not remain static throughout his life, but they changed very gradually and very little. He was never at any point \"not racist\" by contemporary standards, but for example, early in his life he was relatively biased against the Irish:\n\n > I regard the Celts as an inferior race, but little better than Mexicans, & but little more capable of self government. They could never maintain an orderly existence save under the domination of some branch of the Teutonic master race—if they could leave England, they would have to take Germany as a master; in fact, I am not sure but that they need a few Prussian methods to curb their ebullient & seditious emotions.\n- H. P. Lovecraft to the Rheinhart Kleiner, 14 Jun 1916, *Letters to Rheinhart Kleiner* 35\n\nBut this view changed over time, perhaps because of greater exposure to people of Irish descent (like his correspondent Robert E. Howard), perhaps because Lovecraft discovered he himself had a few Celtic ancestors, and perhaps because of the pointed arguments with his friends. In much the same way, several of Lovecraft's beliefs about race underwent slight changes over the course of his life - although never a real reversal. His arguments with friends like James F. Morton (an early member of the NAACP and author of a tract against race prejudice) was a particularly fierce opponent of Lovecraft's racial prejudices, and early positive view of the second Ku Klux Klan (Lovecraft's mentions of the KKK drop off after the scandals in the 20s).\n\nTowards the end of his life especially, Lovecraft became more focused on cultural unity and continuity than biological racialism; one his more famous statements in that regard:\n\n > With the high-grade alien races we can adopt a policy of flexible common-sense—discouraging mixture whenever we can, but not clamping down the bars so ruthlessly against every individual of slightly mixed ancestry. As a matter of fact, most of the psychological race-differences which strike us so prominently are cultural rather than biological. If one could take a Japanese infant, alter his features to the Anglo-Saxon type through plastic surgery, & place him with an American family in Boston for rearing—without stemming him that he is not an American—the chances are that in 20 years the result would be a typical American youth with very few instincts to distinguish him from his pure Nordic college-mates. The same is true of other superior alien races including the Jew—although the Nazis persist in acting on a false biological conception.\n\n- H. P. Lovecraft to Natalie H. Wooley, 22 Nov 1934, *Letters to Robert Bloch and Others* 200-201\n\nLovecraft tended to wear his prejudices on his sleeve, and in trying to justify some of those prejudices he supported certain courses of scientific racialism, and denied newer evidence that suggested otherwise; this is rather against his approach with other subjects, like physics, where Lovecraft was more accepting of new ideas and information. Case in point:\n\n > What I was really laughing at was no Boas himself—whom I freely gave a place among the first-rate anthropologists—but the naïve way in which all nigger-lovers turn to him first of all when trying to scrape up a background of scientific support. He is the only first rate living anthropologist to overlook the obvious primitiveness of the negro & the australoid, hence the equalitarian Utopians have to play him up for all he’s worth & forget the great bulk of outstanding European opinion—Boule, G. Elliot Smith, Sir Arthur Keith, & c.\n\n- H. P. Lovecraft to James F. Morton, 23 Mar 1931, *Letters to James F. Morton* 287\n\nIn this case Lovecraft is poo-pooing Franz Boas, an anthropologist who worked to disprove the idea of fixed biological races; the others HPL mentions were proponents of scientific racialism. The particular fixation of black people (including native Australians, whom Lovecraft never met) as \"inferior\" biologically and culturally was a very strong prejudice he held from a young age, and continued to express until his death. Lovecraft never used the term \"great chain of being\" but his letters make it clear he did tend to think of evolution as being from \"simple to complex\" or \"less advanced\" to \"more advanced,\" and postulated that black people had evolved possibly separately and more recently than other \"races.\"\n\nLovecraft did not express much regret for his views towards the end of his life, or at least there is no regret expressed in his letters or in the surviving memoirs of his wife and friends. That doesn't mean he might not have been chagrined about some of his earlier views and letters, but he didn't express it as such. He did take pains to try not to express his views in such a way as to offend any of his friends. For example, in the margin of one letter he wrote:\n\n > P.S. Better not quote any of this to Bloch (who I discover is of Jewish extraction). While of course this question does not involve any aspersion on the Jewish heritage as a whole, it nevertheless makes embarrassing reading for anybody having more than an academic connexion with Semitism. One would handle it differently with a Jewish correspondent.\n\n- H. P. Lovecraft to J. Vernon Shea, 8 Nov 1933, *Letters to J. Vernon Shea* 170-171\n\nLovecraft's views on Jewish peoples is another that underwent a change over the course of his life, although perhaps too much to go into exact detail here; he was never *not* anti-Semitic by contemporary standards, but his individual views and arguments shifted over the course of his life - both positively and negatively - but he did become much more keen not to offend folks with those views later in life.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1wkwwb
|
how do antibiotic pills work? if there's an infection say in the mouth, how does the body know to send the medication back through the bloodstream to fight the infection? how does the body know that the medication is made to fight infection?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wkwwb/eli5_how_do_antibiotic_pills_work_if_theres_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf2xluq",
"cf30kmh"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Your body doesn't have to \"know\" anything for it to work. It's absorbed into the bloodstream and then kills any bacteria it comes in contact with, as long as they're not too resistant. ",
"The others are correct, though I'll expand a bit. Antibiotics are absorbed (generally) through the small intestine where they enter the blood stream. As they permeate the blood, they are dispersed to all tissues in the body (except those that cannot cross the blood-brain barrier). So, if you have an infection in the mouth, the infected tissue there is receiving the same antibiotic exposure as the healthy tissue of the foot. (this is a generalization of course as different tissue types have different vascularity).\n\nTwo short things to add:\n\n1. Many antibiotics are NOT effective against all bacteria. For example, penicillin works by disrupting the the thick peptidoglycan walls of Gram positive bacteria and therefore is only effective against those organisms (though there are exceptions such as Pasteurella multocida which is sensitive to penicillin but is a Gram negative organism). As most of the normal enteric flora of the gut are Gram negative, they are unaffected by penicillin use. \n\n2. Not all antibiotics are designed to kill bacteria. Antibiotics come in two categories: bactericidal and bacteriostatic. Bactericidal antibiotics actually kill the organism when coming into contact with it (usually by disrupting its cell wall or inhibiting the activity of its ribosomes) while bacteriostatic antibiotics only prevent the organism from replicating, giving the host immune system a chance to not be overwhelmed and therefore do its job.\n\nSource: I'm a medical microbiologist.\n\n**TL;DR Antibiotics go (almost) everywhere there is blood and the body plays no role in their action.**"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8yxeg7
|
why is compulsive hoarding so common among baby boomers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8yxeg7/eli5_why_is_compulsive_hoarding_so_common_among/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2efwaa",
"e2eg4du",
"e2ehfxy",
"e2ekfjq"
],
"score": [
26,
6,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Baby Boomers are the children of those who went through the Great Depression where all supplies and food were hard to get and you had to save every scrap of everything that could potentially be useful. They were raised by people who developed these habits as a matter of survival and many passed on the tendencies to their children. But since the baby boomers were raised in an era of surplus and prosperity these tendencies tended to focus in on random things rather than that which could be useful. ",
"In cases I’ve seen or god forbid had to clean or otherwise deal with, I can tell you it wasn’t necessarily spending but just holding on to anything they ever got. It could’ve been literal garbage to anyone else but “that might be useful one day” and then it just kept piling. Whole storage buildings full. “Free/found stuff” gets hoarded just as bad as stuff they buy if not even exponentially worse. Sometimes it had to do with the fact they didn’t have the opportunity to buy things and so had this belief they had to do that to have anything and that if they threw that out then they wouldn’t have it when they needed it sometime down the road. Some of them were deprived as children early on so take every chance to make up for it, only it gets out of hand. And sometimes it came down from their parents who lived through the depression or around that time and kept everything they ever got to use it for whatever purpose they could, starting the hoarding trend by potential accident. I’m trying to keep this anonymous but it’s hit awful close to home and when you have to pry a twenty year old box of defunct bills from their hands then it’s…not even something I can explain. They just keep things because they can’t bring themselves to throw it out. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard “I might need that!” when no, they likely never will very realistically speaking just on basis of what the thing is.",
"Hoarding is an obsessive-compulsive disorder. One way to look at it is to ask why when baby-boomers have this type of disorder it tends manifest as _hoarding_. What I don't think is true is that baby-boomers are more likely to be obsessive-compulsive, but it's reasonable to suggest that cultures and times will influence how the need to _control_ is exerted by those who are obsessive-compulsive.\n\nI don't know of any research, but it would make sense to me that the child-generation of those who experienced the depression and WWII would be attached to _things_ as expression of security.\n\nSecondly, you're sure to run into some confirmation bias here as hoarding has a characteristic of commonly being caught as generations get older - e.g. children find out about their parents having this habit because they get more involved in their elderly parents lives.",
"The rise of the self storage industry with Boomers being the wealthiest generation of Americans.\n\nThroughout most of human history, most people couldn't amass rooms full of clothing. Clothing was more expensive because they weren't massed produced until the 19 th century. You could also make the case that humans are lonelier than ever before. You don't have to see people if you don't want to see people. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
72m04o
|
how can the government involve itself with sports-related issues?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72m04o/eli5_how_can_the_government_involve_itself_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnjhxxx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > What is illegal (by national laws that fall under FBI jurisdiction) about a company giving individuals money?\n\nBribery of a government official is illegal. You will note that state universities are controlled by the government and the employees are state employees. If you bribe a state employee that is a crime.\n\n > Another incident that points to my question is where Roger Clemens had testified in front of Congress to speak on doping.\n\nCongress has broad powers to demand testimony in order to investigate pretty much anything they want. It doesn't even need to be illegal; if Congress thinks they need to look into it they can call people to testify and they *must* comply."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
18kc8l
|
the differences between a nation, a state, and a nation-state.
|
As many times as I've had this explained, it never sticks. I'm unashamed to ask for a simple explanation. Knowledge is power!
Thank you.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18kc8l/eli5_the_differences_between_a_nation_a_state_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8fjl3w",
"c8fqcg0",
"c8fx480",
"c8gvu21"
],
"score": [
42,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A nation is a group of people with several factors in common like land inhabited, religion, ethnicity, language, or culture.\n\n\nA state is the government over an area of land\n\n\nA nation-state is a state that governs an area that primarily consists of one nation.",
"A nation is an identity. A nation does not have to correspond with a geographical or political entity. Under this definition, for example, the Colbert Nation is just as valid of a nation as America. \n\nA state is the political entity that exercises sovereignty over a defined region with a population. \n\nA nation-state is when a nation and a state coincide. That is, the population under the sovereign identifies with said sovereign. Of course, this is a bit blurry since surely not the entire population identifies with the state. \n\nAmerica might be an example of a nation-state. Although not everybody agrees with the government, most Americans identify themselves as, well, American. The Colbert Nation is not a nation-state because there is no well-defined state to go with the nation.\n\nAnother non-example of a nation-state might be Nigeria. The borders of the state were drawn with little regard to the identity of the people, and as a result, the people of Nigeria might prefer to think of themselves as members of their individual regions (e.g. Yoruba, Igbo, or Hausa Fulani) rather than as Nigerians. \n\nAlso, this wasn't a part of the question, but it's somewhat relevant. The definition of State requires the existence of a geographical region where the state is sovereign. The word \"Country\" refers to the geographical region itself. ",
"Think of a nation like you and your buddies in a club. You guys all get together to do things that you all have in common. You can do it anywhere, the thing that makes the nation is the commonality between the members.\n\nThink of a state as your house. Your family all lives there, but you don't really have much in common with everyone in the house. But it is all one unit that your parents are in charge of.\n\nThink of a nation state like your club house. It is all one unit and your club is in charge.",
"A nation is a group of people that have a language and heritage in common. The Japanese are a good example of a nation. The concept of a nation can change over time. For example, a few centuries ago we had Sicilians, Neapolitans, Sardinians, etc. Now these people usually consider themselves part of the Italian nation. Nation is often used as a synonym for ethnicity.\n\nA state is a government that controls an area of land that has set borders. \n\nA nation-state is a government with a territory that is usually dominated by one nation/ethnic group. Most nation-states are home to minorities from other nations. For example, Germany is a the nation-state of Germans. But there are other people living there (Poles, Turks, Sorbs, etc.) that are not part of the German nation (but are still citizens). \n\nNations aren't restricted to borders. Syrians, Iraqis, and Algerians all live in different countries. But they all consider themselves to be a part of the Arab nation because they speak Arabic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3mkpq1
|
Where in the universe does time run faster than what we currently experience here on Earth?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3mkpq1/where_in_the_universe_does_time_run_faster_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvfunig",
"cvg0gaz"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"Anywhere the gravitational field is weaker than on Earth will see time running faster. Empty space far from any objects will see the fastest time flow.",
"It runs faster relative to us in places of lower gravity. For example, the astronauts on the ISS watch our time run a little slow, while we watch their time run a little fast. When astronauts return to Earth, they will have aged a bit faster than everyone else (by a few milliseconds? nanoseconds? not sure on this one). This is a result of general relativity. The effects of gravitational time dilation, however, are partially counteracted by the speed of the ISS. The ISS is moving at ~8 km/s, and so in according to special relativity this causes their time to run slower relative to us. In fact, there is a certain altitude above the Earth where the effects of relativity from GR and SR balance each other out.\n\nIf you want to know where it would run fastest, suppose you were very near a black hole, and you looked out at the rest of the universe. Since you are in such a strong gravitational field, the effects of time dilation are so high that you'd witness the universe age extremely fast. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8dc29l
|
why are semi-trailer trucks so deadly in crashes?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8dc29l/eli5_why_are_semitrailer_trucks_so_deadly_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxlz8k3",
"dxlz97o",
"dxlzkk7"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"The weight difference is the biggest factor. Cars, SUVs, and pickups weigh less than 10,000 pounds. The average loaded semi weighs 80,000 pounds. Cars are also built to transport their own weight and the weight of their passengers, meaning that their frames, bodies, and suspension parts are designed for lightweight service. Trucks must be designed to carry 80,000 pounds, and are therefore built much sturdier with heavier materials. ",
"Simple physics. Force = mass x acceleration. If a 1.5 ton car hits you at 40 miles an hour... 60 whatever the unit would be. Take a semi with 15 ton total mass between rig, trailer, and cargo at the same speed it’s literally 10x the force hitting you. More acceleration of your body == > more chances of trauma to internal organs as they slam into your skeleton and you die.",
"They are bigger, taller, and much heavier than the other vehicles on the road. Their greater mass means they deliver more force into the other vehicles they hit and that increases the chances of death. Their chassis also tend to be at or near head height for people who are in a sedan or smaller car and so you get a lot of decapitations when a car runs into the trailer portion of a semi. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2hqfsm
|
In 223BCE how different would the different versions of Greek spoken across the Eurasia, have been from each other? Were they all mutually intelligible?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hqfsm/in_223bce_how_different_would_the_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckvi4y9"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Koine Greek (from the Greek word for \"common\") was a variety of Greek spoken throughout the Greek world, including at the least the Greek Islands, Asia Minor, Egypt, and the Levant. The term \"koine language\" today refers to a lingua Franca used amongst speakers of related languages. \n\nKoine Greek was based mostly on the Attic dialect, from the area surrounding Athens, but also included features from other dialects. I've read two different stories for its creation: it emerged in the seaport of Athens, or it emerged in Alexander's army. Either way it emerged as a way for speakers of different dialects to communicate with each other.\n\nSetting aside the question of how different the dialects were, **in 223BC a person from one part of the Greek world would've been able to communicate with people from other parts of the Greek world.**\n\nBy definition, a group of dialects that undergo koineisation are different enough to encourage the creation of a koine, but have enough mutual intelligibility that the creation of a creole (which, to simplify, is a stripped-down hybrid of two languages) is not necessary."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4zq51i
|
Does people that have lost limbs have higher blood pressure?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4zq51i/does_people_that_have_lost_limbs_have_higher/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6xxf1w",
"d6y2ens"
],
"score": [
13,
33
],
"text": [
"The body has mechanisms to alter or maintain blood pressure and blood flow. There are sensors that sense blood pressure in the walls of the arteries and send signals to the heart, the arterioles, the veins, and the kidneys that cause them to make changes that lower or increase blood pressure. \n\nSource: _URL_0_ \n\nI have no idea though. Love the question. It makes me realize how perfect our bodies are. I wouldn't think so though. Our body has to know how much blood to produce or it would just keep making more. \n\nEdit: our bodies aren't perfect. Just flawed but beautiful meat sacks.",
"Baroreceptors are specialized neurons which line the walls of mammalian blood vessels. As pressure in the vessels change, they expand and shrink. The baroreceptors are sensitive to that change and fire action potentials (thats science for nerve impulses) back to the hypothalamus (the part of your brain that regulates homeostasis). \n\nFrom here the hypothalamus is able to send many types of chemical signals which can alter the blood pressure. For instance, it could release vasopressin to signal the kidneys to retain water and increase blood volume. Since the volume of water in the system increases, so too must volume. \n\nIf you wanted to reduce blood pressure, the hypothalamus might stop releasing vasopressin, or perhaps it might secrete epinephrine (adrenaline) to relax the smooth muscle of the arteries. This epinephrine would increase the volume of the circulatory system without increasing the volume, thereby reducing pressure. \n\nAll of this is happening every moment of your life. If some limbs were to be lost, the hypothalamus would simply reduce blood volume to maintain its baseline blood pressure. \n\nSource: Am a biologist with a focus on human physiology and disease\n\nDisclaimer: For a more complete understanding, we will need to cover several years of foundational coursework. Here is listed a simplified illustration of how these mechanisms work. \n\nEdit: regarding the comment which states how 'perfect' our bodies are, consider the following. These processes are not thinking, or reasoning. In the event of trauma, the hypothalamus immediately releases epinephrine to speed the heart and to increase oxygen flow to the muscles. This in turn relaxes smooth muscle and rapidly decreases blood pressure, causing poor perfusion of blood to the end organs. This is the mechanism that causes people to go into circulatory shock after a trauma. Plenty of people die from circulatory shock as it causes things like hypoxia, cardiac and respiratory arrest. Our bodies are by no means perfect. Our biology can be beautiful and elegant in its ingenious mechanics, but it is often horribly imperfect. Just about everything in our bodies could be better designed if we could do it from the ground up. You can't fly, you can only process one type of atmosphere, you can't regrow limbs, you aren't radiation resistant, your digestion is terribly inefficient, your eyes are all wrong for use outside of water, and on and on. Beauty and interest does not imply perfection, that's all I am saying. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"Medicine.net"
],
[]
] |
||
vrt3f
|
Dry erase on wood?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vrt3f/dry_erase_on_wood/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c573chg",
"c5743f6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As wood is very porous I don't think it's possible. Depending of course on the type of wood you work with. Most woods would need to be lacquered or heavily polished to work with a dry erase marker.",
"There is dry erase paint that you can buy at any hardware store (similar to the paint on chalkboard surfaces). It isn't writing on wood as a dry erase, but it is treating wood in a way to make it dry eraseable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7yq9io
|
Can dogs observe and recognize aging in adult humans? Do they differentiate between young adult, middle-aged and elderly humans?
|
I guess I should also specify: If they do, can they make these distinctions instinctively, without training by human handlers?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7yq9io/can_dogs_observe_and_recognize_aging_in_adult/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dujnqoy"
],
"score": [
72
],
"text": [
"I’m not sure about this specifically, but the most common way people find out whether animals and babies can differentiate between things is by using a habituation test. \n\nA habituation test is an experimental procedure where you show images or objects to the subject over and over until they get habituated to it (like getting bored). The most common way to measure this habituation is by measuring how long they look at the object. \n\nIf you show a baby a picture of a cat thirty times in a row, they’re not going to stare at the thirtieth cat as long as they did the first one. But if you switch to a dog, they go right back to paying attention. That’s how we know that babies can tell the difference between some kinds of animals and objects. \n\nIf you wanted to objectively study whether dogs can tell how old a human is, this is probably the easiest way to do it. Show them pictures of older people until they stop paying attention, then switch to an infant. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1tlkev
|
When did it become common for Europeans outside Britain/Ireland to learn English?
|
Was it in the last few decades or further back?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tlkev/when_did_it_become_common_for_europeans_outside/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce98ayd",
"ce99fz0",
"ce9gt2s"
],
"score": [
16,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"Of interest would also be when the Irish started learning English...",
"I can chip in for Sweden.\n\nNot far after the compulsory *folkskola* (people's school) was started, English became an academic subject. This is second half of the 19th century. It was mandatory for certain programmes in the mid-level of education (during that period, working class kids were supposed to get a couple years of schooling and then sent out into working life, while the higher class kids would stay longer in school) but lived a pretty quiet life in the shadow of the first foreign language in Sweden: German.\n\nHowever, sometime in the 1930s, it was voted to become the new first foreign language to be taught in Swedish schools, and after the Second world war the change was fully implemented.\n\nThese days, kids as young as six start learning basic vocabulary (colors, animals and other every day objects) and formal English education starts at the very latest in the fourth year of schooling (kids aged 9-10 ish). Most kids go to gymnasium (upper secondary school) where they take one or two years of English; some can take the three \"common\" one year courses and then there are some specialized courses (aimed at different programs for example, like technical English for engineers).\n\nSource: I am an English/History teacher in Sweden and we were taught this when I was in the teaching programme at the University. I can probably dig up the relevant political documents or some encyclopedia references if people are interested in further reading.",
"Former Yugoslavia:\n\nMy father has an English (learning) book printed in Belgrade right after WWI (I am trying to remember the name of the author. It is Aleksandar, either Vidović or Vidaković).\n\nPresident Tito, who was born in 19th century did speak some English as you can see in the [video](_URL_0_) showing his visit to JFK.\n\nHowever, both things were exceptions. There were very few people in Yugoslavia before WWII who studied English (more to be able to read Shakespeare in original than to use it in everyday communications). \n\nAfter WWII students grades 5 to 12 studied at least one foreign language and most commonly one of these: German, French, Russian, English. The elementary school I attended did not have only the first there of the above mentioned options because there were no English teacher in the town. So, you have a bootstrap problem. You need teachers and to have teachers you need college level teachers. So it takes some time. Right now, in Bosnian, the majority of young people speak some English, I believe is a similar situation in other former Yugoslav republics. \n\nEnglish language that was taught in Former Yugoslavia was a British variant and the teachers were very strict in enforcing it. \n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xvgjFtSUF8"
]
] |
|
3r58t8
|
where did all the cereal prizes go?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3r58t8/eli5_where_did_all_the_cereal_prizes_go/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwl066t",
"cwl30l5",
"cwl8tv3",
"cwl98yt",
"cwl9faq",
"cwlauzw"
],
"score": [
151,
52,
19,
9,
34,
6
],
"text": [
"Down some toddler's throat. Now we have stickers and website codes which are much more difficult to choke on and far less expensive to package.",
"Just bought a box of honey nut O's with a minions toy inside.\n\nIt's definitely not as popular as is was 20-30 years ago but it still happens. (And imo the toys aren't nearly as cool anymore but hey, they're not marketed to my age bracket) ",
"Hell kids get iPhones at 5 now. It's hard to bribe them with wacky wallwalkers in cereal nowadays.",
"You are not allowed to advertise gimmicks to kids (at least in Canada). Because companies could no longer message the toy on the packaging, most companies stopped including the toy all together as it no longer drove sales. ",
"Remember back in the late 90's/early 2000's when they would put cd-rom games in cereal boxes. I remember begging my mom to buy lucky charms (pretty expensive at the time, still is), just to play roller coaster tycoon or who want's to be a millionaire. ",
"Maybe you can't see them anymore as you're all grown up?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6p57dz
|
why do we have to pasteurize cow milk but not breast milk?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6p57dz/eli5_why_do_we_have_to_pasteurize_cow_milk_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkmr8jf",
"dkmsc46"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"The difference is that Brest milk isn't generally kept for long times where bacteria and pathogens can get in and start multiplying, Its almost always ingested teat to mouth. As opposed to cow or goat milk.",
"Milk is sterile when it comes out of the cow or human. But as soon as it touches anything it becomes contaminated with bacteria. Milk is also an amazing growth medium for bacteria, its impossible to keep the milk totally sterile and even a small amount of bacteria will very rapidly multiply.\n\nWhat matters for the consumer of the milk is how long it will take those initial bacteria to multiply until the milk is no longer safe to drink, which is itself a matter of the type and quantity of bacteria that get into the milk.\n\nIf you're talking about a woman pumping breast milk and storing it in the fridge for a day or two, its fairly safe to assume that the equipment she's using is relatively clean and that the woman wasn't rolling around in her own feces moments before milking herself. Because of that, the initial quantity of bacteria in the milk is going to be low and there isn't going to be anything too bad in there. As long as the milk isn't being stored for more than a few days the risk it poses is negligible.\n\nBut neither of those things is safe to assume with a cow. And in your worst case scenario where the cow was rolling around in feces and milked using dirty equipment, the milk you get is going to be filled with large amounts of listeria and other pathogens. Which is ultimately why we pasteurize cow milk - its a simple, low cost method of completely mitigating against a serious health risk.\n\nThat being said, its entirely possible that you could find a dairy that follows extremely high standards of cleanliness selling unpasteurized milk and that milk will last just as long as your average woman's breast milk (and there are certainly small dairies out there that try to do just that). The problem you have in drinking milk like that is you're relying on everything with the dairy being perfect - which is something that you have absolutely no control over. And all it takes is no one noticing a cow shitting all over itself a few hours before getting milked for anyone drinking that milk to develop a serious illness."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
219h0l
|
why is "district attorney" in the us often an elected and political position?
|
In the US, the person who leads the government office responsible for prosecuting crimes is called the "District Attorney" or "DA", and in many areas, this person is elected (rather than appointed by merit) as part of the normal partisan election.
It's heartbreaking how often you read things like "Well, it's an election year, so [despite these other circumstances], he had to file charges to appear "tough on crime"." Or "Well, the prosecutor will probably force this to go to trial, despite the lack of evidence, to avoid losing political face." Shouldn't this be a position about justice, guilt, and innocence, rather than about politics and appearances?
I'm racking my brain trying to figure out why we think it's a good idea to have the district attorney as an elected, political position? ELI5?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/219h0l/eli5_why_is_district_attorney_in_the_us_often_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgavp5b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"How do you suggest they get appointed, if not by election? Who decides what the test looks like? Who administers it for? Who decides what crimes will be focused on? Who decides what crimes won't be focused on?\n\nElecting a person seems like the only reasonable way to answer all of these questions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1pcv2y
|
Without ready access to sugar, what were popular desserts in early Colonial America?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pcv2y/without_ready_access_to_sugar_what_were_popular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd15oum",
"cd15zqg",
"cd16zsq",
"cd180st",
"cd18559",
"cd1aga0",
"cd1b701",
"cd1bwtl"
],
"score": [
290,
10,
30,
29,
62,
3,
6,
8
],
"text": [
"Settlers in the area lacked traditional cane sugar, but they were not without sugar. The Northeast is full of many sugar maple trees that were used to create maple syrup, used by natives long before Europeans settled the area. Sap is harvested, boiled into syrup, and if you boil it some more you get a crystalline sugar that can be used as a substitute for cane sugar. Honey is another sugar substitute that was available from local bee populations. The history of collecting honey is ancient, and could be done the same in America as in Europe. Either of these options have a wide variety of potential uses in baking, or as a general sweetener for most dishes.\n\nThe Northeastern colonies are also good for growing a wide variety of plants useful for baking. Apples were quickly imported from Europe and used to make cider and pies. Pumpkins are another popular food item that were better for storing in the winter months. The innards of a pumpkin can be pureed into a semi-sweet sauce that may be used as pie filling or to flavor other baked goods like pumpkin bread. Grapes, strawberries, blackberries, pears, raspberries, cranberries, and mint can be grown in the Americas and used for an assortment of different baked goods as well.",
"Did they not just import the cane sugar that was grown to their south in the Caribbean (Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, etc.)?",
"They had plenty of sugar and molasses, as that was a key leg of the triangle trade between the West Indies and the American Colonies, where the molasses would be distilled into rum and exported. The attempted taxes - and resulting smuggling - on sugar and molasses were a key factor leading up to the American Revolution.\n\nIf you're interested in historic deserts from the Colonial Period, look up the *City Tavern Baking and Dessert Cookbook* some time which isn't entirely period, but makes a good attempt to simulate it with modern ingredients.",
"I agree with the previous comments on sugar, international trade between the colonies and other regions (west indies) allowed them to import these items for use in desserts as supported in 'America's Founding Food: The Story of New England Cooking' 'The slave labor system and the expansion of international trade that brought sugar, molasses, and rum into prominence also led to the rise of three new nonalcoholic drinks: chocolate, tea, and coffee. \"Groceries\" was the term used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for newly imported consumable commodities from distant places'\n\nIn Colonial America there were many varied desserts, there are instances of there being early American candy, non-alcoholic dessert drinks, cakes and even in late colonial America of there being ice-cream.\n\nEarly-American candy: These came in several kinds. One common homemade form of candy was called 'preserves' and these consisted of fruits and berries cooked and stored in syrup (they could also be mashed into jam and marmalade). Fruits had brandy added to them in syrup in which they were stored to make brandied fruits. They even made jelly through strained juices, as well as fruit and berry syrups (source: Colonial Virginia Cookery, Jane Carson) \n\nColonial America dessert drinks: Popular dessert drinks could be found in hot-chocolate, added with either water or milk to get it to preferential thickness. As well as this less 'dessert' based drinks (but still drunk for their better taste) included coffee and tea. Overall, the quality/taste of these drinks varied wildly due to their usually coming from a single plantation (and soil or climate could change the overall taste from year to year). Typically some of these were expensive but not out of reach for the 'average' colonial American (source: Colonial America, Sally Smith Booth)\n\nColonial America cakes: Typically involved alcohol, dried fruits and nuts and would be considered 'rich' as noted in 'Foods From Our Founding Fathers' (Helen Newbury Burke) for a cake recipe from the period 'Prepare the fruit and nuts, and dredge with part of the flour. Cream the butter and sugar together and add the well-beaten eggs. Mix and sift the flour and spices and add to the egg mixture. Add the fruit and liquids by degrees. Line a large baking pan with wax paper, greasing the pan well and then greasing the paper. Turn in the cake mixture and bake in a preheated slow over (250 degrees) for about 3 hours. Frost with white boiled icing. Makes about 12 pounds of cake' thought this particular cake mentioned would probably be only served during special occasions such as a wedding. \n\nColonial America ice-cream (and ice): This is very late colonial America (1770's) but there is evidence to suggest of the first seller of ice-cream being Philip Lenzi. Later on you can see an advertisement in the New York Gazette of May 12, 1777, which stated that his ice cream 'may be had almost every day.' this ice-cream typically was served with milk and usually fruit, like strawberries (source: The Great American Ice Cream Book, Paul Dickson). As well as this early form of ice-cream in colonial America there was also 'flavored ice', this was usually not available to the 'average' colonial citizen due to ice not being readily available year round. As a result, only the wealthy were able to have this luxury due to the use of purpose built 'ice-houses' where ice cut from rivers or lakes was stored underground where it could be insulated.\n\nIf you want to find some decent cookbooks you can find them here (_URL_0_) \n\nHope that gave a good idea\n",
"I wanted to point out in clarification to the post by /u/Proditus that bees were imported to North America by the Jamestown colonists [sometime in 1622](_URL_1_). Previously, there were no european honey bees in north, central or south america. They actually allowed the pollination of European plants to occur, notably letting white clover to spread which made much of the old world lifestock more viable. \n\nI also would like to point out that ovens in colonial America were wood fired refractory \"boxes\" that were temperature controlled by a servant or housewife actually tending the fire with a [baking peel](_URL_2_). There were fewer cakes and more delicate pastries as we think of them today because temperature control was not easy to achieve. \n\nBreads in fact were cooked in a dutch oven covered with coals in most cases. There were many puddings and [cobbler style dishes](_URL_0_) made with short doughs. \n\nEdit: To clarify, I was talking about delicate pastries over quantity. Lots of pastries and other baked goods that we today assemble from simple ingredients are impossible to make with any regularity with that inaccurate of an oven. Any layered dough pastry, soufles, cakes that have a delicate texture (though most of those also rely on chemical leavening that the colonists would not have had access to), etc. \n\nEdit 2: /u/400-Rabbits brought to my attention that central America had stingless honey bees before the European honey bee and there was a history of honey collecting. ",
"Any stories behind the funny names, like slumps, grunts, and fools?",
"Johnny \"Appleseed\" Chapman was a real person. He traveled the then Northwest (PA-IL) planting apple seeds. He did this because apples served as an important source of sugar (for sweetening and for alcohol). Apple butter, made from cooked down juice, is basically apply jam: concentrated sugar. But he is post-colonial so I don't know how relevant that is.\n",
"I used to do tours for the Denison House in Forty Fort, PA. I actually have a recipe book we gave to guests to replicate foods they would have enjoyed. \n\nSome of them a little out of the period (18th century) but are mostly colonial based. Sugar was often replaced with maple or honey or even fruit if it was not available. Let me go to my trusty book shelf...\n\n\"Colonial\" Holiday Punch- 1 gallon apple cider, 1/2 gallon cranberry or currant juice, 1 cup brown sugar or honey (18th century addition, 3/4 cup lemon juice)\n\nApple Chip Cake with Hard Sauce - 1 1/3 oil, 2 cups sugar/honey, 2 eggs, 2 cups of apple slices, (Hard Sauce) 1/3 softened butter, 1 cup honey, 2 tbs wine/cognac/sherry/booze.\n\nLots of recipes stuff I am tired of typing out. Here is a few more:\n\nMartha's Fruit Cake- Your basic fruit cake renamed for Martha Washington briefly.\n\nRosewater Currant Cakes \n\nCranberry/Currant Steamed Pudding\n\nShrewsburry Cakes\n\nPumpkin Bread\n\nIf anyone wants the full recipes, please say so and I'd be glad to post them. Shrewberry Cakes and Pumpkin Bread are dated 1590 and are the oldest recipes in the guide we used to use. Most of them were late 1600's and early 1700's. Even if the house I gave tours from was built in 1790."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcolonial.html#colonialcookbooks"
],
[
"http://www.hulu.com/watch/231568",
"http://www.orsba.org/htdocs/download/Honey%20Bees%20Across%20America.html",
"http://www.thehenryford.org/food/cookware.aspx?cookwareID=486"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8ko7ga
|
Are there any mammals with the same or similar vocal range/abilities as humans?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8ko7ga/are_there_any_mammals_with_the_same_or_similar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz9cned",
"dz9cuhy",
"dz9e7a8",
"dz9gh6i",
"dz9rd24",
"dz9svea",
"dz9ujks",
"dz9ypn5",
"dz9znxv",
"dzab69r",
"dzmqpsm"
],
"score": [
4761,
154,
715,
588,
44,
36,
15,
89,
13,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Dogs actually have pretty similar ranges as humans, from a deep bark to a high pitched wimper. \n\nMore interesting is vocal ability question... Both birds and (some) whales are known to be able to imitate human speech.\n\n\n\n",
"I don't know of others but the Lyrebird can mimic even MORE sounds than we can. [Lyrebird sounding just like a chainsaw](_URL_0_)",
"I watched a documentary once that talked about gelada baboons, and how their vocalizations have complex patterns that could actually be a form of speech. They showed them slowly working their way across a field all day chattering to each other while they grazed on grass. I tried but I had trouble finding a video that had as good a sound recording as I remember it being. Here's an example from YouTube : \n\n\n_URL_0_",
"Well, a [lyre bird](_URL_0_) (wait for it) may well surpass human vocal range and ability.\n\nIf not, their talent for mimicry certainly does. \n\nNote: Lyre birds in the wild are not likely to mimic some of the things that the bird in that video does, apparently that particular program used a couple of captive lyre birds which learned to mimic things they heard in captivity.",
"Why is no one linking the [Goats with Taylor Swift video](_URL_1_)? Or are those all the posts that were removed?\n\nSeriously. Most mid-sized mammals have the capacity to [mimic human voice](_URL_0_). We're about the same size and lung capacity, so they can scream like us, but not articulate like us. ",
"Check out this article: _URL_0_\n\n\nIt details how the anatomy of a Japanese macaque monkey's vocal tract resembles that of the human's, insofar as it has the ability--even the range--to verbalize common human expressions, e.g. \"Will you marry me?\"\n\nWhat precludes the macaque monkey from using its innate ability to speak *might* have to do with a very specific gene.\n\nEdit: Italicized \"might.\"\n",
"Whales and dolphins have large vocal ranges that span that of a human and more. Orcas and bottlenose dolphins, exhibit complex communication systems and recognize the vocalizations of other individuals withing their family as their, say, brother or sister. Let alone their ability to echolocate and proclivity to have sex for pleasure, they're pretty smart. ",
"So, most of these responses are not getting at the root of the question. \n\nThe short answer is no. No mammal comes close. \n\nThe trait that you are talking about is generally referred to as *vocal learning*, particularly vocal production learning or the ability to modify vocalizations in a meaningful way. We know of three families of birds ([oscine](_URL_0_) [songbirds](_URL_1_), [parrots](_URL_10_), and [hummingbirds](_URL_2_) ) and five families of mammals (humans, [dolphins](_URL_3_) /[whales](_URL_4_), [bats](_URL_9_), [seals](_URL_6_), [elephants](_URL_5_) ) that have this ability in the current measurable form. This largely is noted by an ability to learn and modulate vocal patterns from external sources (mimicking parent sounds) and the absence of that ability with deafness or isolation. As well, these animals share generally convergent brain circuitry in cortical regions to regulate this behavior - interesting on its own but outside the scope of this question. \n\nPrimates have been studied very extensively over the past several decades and while there are occasionally some papers that talk about slight modifications to one call or another, there is no comparison in their abilities to say a dolphin or a sparrow. [Vervet monkeys](_URL_7_) are often cited for their vocal abilities, but this is categorized as vocal *usage* learning - taking innate vocal calls and assigning meaning to them. They might have the cognitive substrates for the kind of communication humans have, but are not equipped to put that into any meaningful vocal capacity. \n\nThis is not to say that there aren’t other vocal learning species out there. It’s not an easy criteria to study in the wild, and it’s been proposed that it is not an all or nothing trait, instead falling along a continuum. For instance, [lab mice](_URL_8_) have only recently(?!) been shown to regulate their calls in different contexts and have a *very* sparse but parallel brain circuitry to vocal learning species. From these findings, there’s no telling what might pop up in other species like dogs, hippos, or marmosets. \n\nThis is kind of my area of expertise so if anyone has any other questions I’m happy to answer them. :)\n\nEdit: some words, example videos",
"It is my understanding that humans are unique among primates for having breath control, which is why our vocalizations are not sudden, breath-taking huffs like meows and moos and barks and the whole litany of other animal sounds. We can pause our inhalations and exhalations and that is a huge requisite for pretty much all human languages. It is difficult to imagine other animals being comfortable with human communication unless they, too, possess breath control.\n\nAnd that is just one way in which human vocalization is unique. Pitch shifts for emphasis, questioning, or basically in languages like Mandarin, are also critical. Metaphor is also necessary to discuss literally anything abstract whatsoever, and we base those metaphors in embodied human experiences. This further demonstrates why human language is distinct and difficult to extend to other species.",
"Very uninteresting answer, but kind of surprised I haven’t seen it yet. A parrot can imitate a human pretty well. It may not be able to produce its own speech, but the parrot is able to mimic the human with relatively correct pitch and range. I also could be totally wrong about this so to all the parrotologists please correct me, I love animals and learning new things about them!",
"There may be mammals other than human beings with a similar vocal range, but there is no other species with the ability that humans have to develop those vocals or turn them into something of intelligent communication.\n\nTo say there was a species other than humans who did have the ability to develop and learn through reflective adaptation and/or deductive reasoning to create a progressive and evolving language from their vocal cords would be to say they would eventually evolve as humans did along with the awareness of self, a soul and introspective thought.\n\nThen to take it a step further and apply this reasoning to a bigger picture, we would have to conclude that hippos, bonobos, dolphins, whales, bats and other similar mammals would all eventually be going to college, getting married, driving Chevy's, taking vacations in Maui, creating a working social structure with internal institutionalized relationships, playing miniature golf and piloting aircraft.\n\nAs for me, I don't like airplanes to begin with. So I sure as heck would never board one if the pilot was a monkey. How 'bout you?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/mSB71jNq-yQ?t=148"
],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vPtcNucxiMg"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/PpccpglnNf0",
"https://youtu.be/NfPndEB2ec0"
],
[
"http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/why-monkeys-can-t-talk-and-what-they-would-sound-if-they-could"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/POiLhy3nfWQ",
"https://youtu.be/ULzJc8CLeVA",
"https://youtu.be/wkUokgJx3Tw",
"https://youtu.be/hnVAv77gEqo",
"https://youtu.be/7Xr9BYhlceA",
"https://youtu.be/0bI0Hh4jozc",
"https://youtu.be/qHR__ugsNBg",
"https://youtu.be/3lsF83rHKFc",
"https://youtu.be/wVQVw478Rh4",
"https://youtu.be/O3n_3XH5-A4",
"https://youtu.be/p0E1Wny5kCk"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2q3avs
|
Does History only pertain to humans?
|
I hope this is the correct place to ask this:
Does history only refer to the past of humans? I'm trying to answer a college essay prompt "What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed?" However i'm unclear on the definition of history. The dictionary definitions are vague and sometimes refer to specifically human history, but other definitions do not specify .
Any help would be much appreciated.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2q3avs/does_history_only_pertain_to_humans/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn2erw2"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"If considered with its technical and narrow definition, \"history\" refers to that part of the past that is documented with written records. One can have a history of volcanic eruptions - and not even consider their effect on people - but the use of the term \"history\" would technically imply \"volcanic eruptions\" that appear in written documents.\n\nThat said, the term history is often used generically for \"the past.\" Given the nature of the question, I don't think we can include the mass extinction of the dinosaurs since there are no documents that can be brought to bear on that event. Stick with events that are within the period of recorded documents - whether or not those documents deal specifically with the effects of natural phenomenon on people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8xfsq1
|
why did some animals in the same family become hyper aggressive like geese, whereas ducks are relatively benign?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8xfsq1/eli5_why_did_some_animals_in_the_same_family/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e235aal",
"e23belt",
"e23fe10",
"e23k9xe",
"e23kn2d",
"e23prfv",
"e23vvmo",
"e240y2p"
],
"score": [
27,
2855,
58,
353,
49,
14,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Geese have earned their vicious reputation from their behaviour when they protect their nests. They nest on the ground where there are many predators, so they are very protective. \n\n(Some) ducks like wood ducks nest in tree hollows and are not faced with the same pressure and are more docile/less evident. ",
"I'm going to try an ELI15:\n\nSometimes a lot of behaviour is evolutionary. It's a bit of a generalization to say that geese are hyper aggressive and ducks are meek (although anyone who's been in Canada can tell you Canada geese have no fear). Realistically, there's no exact answer (as far as I know), but I can talk a bit about conflict in birds.\n\nHere's the example I'll bring up between two very closely related birds: the blue heron and the great egret. \nBlue herons and great egrets lay similarly sized nests. In herons, most of the chicks coexist alright. In egrets, however, the chicks will often (85%? of the time) kill one another (exemplifying **siblicide**). Parents typically won't interfere with this behaviour - I suppose this could be defined as aggression. In fact, the parenting style was seen as an explanation for the siblicide. On the other hand, heron chicks do not really kill one another that often, since they had a different parenting style (loosely speaking). In the vein of great science, Mock & Parker decided to test out cross fostering (that is, having herons raise egrets and egrets raise herons).\n\nThey found that, in short, when a heron parents egret chicks, they still fight. I'm not going to mention the mechanism that encourages the siblicide in egrets, but the long and short is that egret chicks are vicious and will continue to kill one another, often leaving one chick to grow to adulthood. That is, the siblicide is **obligate** behaviour. When egrets parented herons, the mechanism for siblicide is there (parenting), and siblicide that *wasn't* there previously developed in the chicks, with the largest chick killing the rest of the nest. So, the siblicide (aggression, I guess) was both \"innate\" behaviour (again, *very* loosely speaking) and \"outside\" behaviour encouraged (facilitated) by the parents.\n\n**tl;dr**: even closely related species (birds, for example) can have wildly different behaviours. Aggression is not necessarily environmental. In the case of geese and ducks it's probably many factors. There is, as far as I know, no short answer.\n\nsome sources: \n\n_URL_2_ (Mock & Parker on the herons/egrets)\n\nmore reading\n\n_URL_3_\n_URL_0_\n\n\n\n\nEdit: more in depth about the experiment is here: \n_URL_1_",
"Depends on where they live and what they eat. Many animals have evolved to mooch off humans. Take wolves vs. dogs or tigers vs. cats. \n\nAlso, smaller animals have a stronger propensity toward flight (rather than fight). Wild ducks aren’t aggressive but they aren’t friendly... they’ll get the heck outta dodge if a strange animal approaches because they are easy prey. \n\nGeese on the other hand are large enough that they have the clout to stand up to foxes, coyotes, raccoons, rodents, or anyone who tries to mess with them or their babies. ",
"Rottweilers and collies and poodles and wolves have very different behavior patterns. Some of it is inherited and some of it is learned. \n\nAs another poster pointed out, too, this behavior comes from being able to survive attacks. Ducks rely especially on camouflage while geese rely on more aggressive behavior. They have different adaptations for the same danger. \n\n***ELI5**: In a prison, you can be the guy who keeps his head down or the guy who beats someone up the first day. One keeps predators from thinking of you, the other makes them think twice about messing with you.*",
"One reason is competition over resources.\n\nA couple million years ago the Congo river separated some primates from each other. The ones in the more resource abundant environment became bonobos, which are fairly benign and social.\n\nThe other ones in the less resourceful area became chimps, more aggressive and competitive. ",
"I'll try to answer (as a biology student): \n\n\nThere is no one path to reproductive success. The behavior can be genetically determined or developmentally determined (learned), but overall it must only be a strategy that is stable for a species to reproduce within a certain environment. In other words, any strategy is sufficient insofar as it leads to reproduction. \n\n\nLet's say for example (an example that ignores actual biological realities) that in a geese population, all the male geese are passive and this is the only trait that affects successful reproduction within a non-monogamous population and it is genetically determined. One male goose is born with a mutation that makes him hyper aggressive. He passes on many copies of his genes reproducing successfully many times because he chases off his competitors. This continues until all the male geese within the population are aggressive. If that aggression rises to the level of fatality (the hyper aggressive geese kill each other), then the more passive of the aggressive geese will begin to have more opportunities to pass on their genes. If it does not than the more aggressive goose will mate more. \n\n\nHowever, reality isn't that neat. One goose could develop a weirdly shaped penis that scrapes out all his competitors' sperm and thus not need to be aggressive. Another could develop a strategy that involves wooing a mate with colorful feathers. Another could just mate with the same bird over and over again ensuring that he/she reproduces. Another could be aggressive within an environment in which that leads to death (i.e. an island with a lot of bears). Natural selection is not a razor that inevitably leads to a hierarchical ideal of \"progress\" or \"improvement\" in which one strategy or behavior is \"better\" than another. It is a chaotic process by which the only measure of success is reproduction under environmental pressures. The possibilities are essentially limitless, even for very similar animals in very similar environments.",
"I work at a place with a collection of several different species of wildfowl, and it's not really true that geese are aggressive whilst ducks are benign. There's a lot of difference in levels of aggression between different geese and duck species, and it generally has to do with a couple of factors - the resources available in the environment they are usually found in, and their ability to blend in to that environment to avoid danger.\n\nThe Cereopsis, or Cape Barren Goose, lives on rocky beaches in Australia, and has to defend the scarce resources in its territory. They are highly aggressive at all times, and are built like tanks. Hawaiian geese, aka Nenes, on the other hand, only show aggression towards other Nenes or other species when defending a nest - the rest of the time they're very chill and friendly. They are an island species with few natural predators and relatively good camouflage, so fighting for them is too much of a risk except when defending the next generation.\n\nIn ducks, it works the same way - larger, more conspicuous species originating from habitats where resources are scarcer tend towards aggression, and smaller, better camouflaged species from more abundant habitats are much more chill. Like any generalisation, there are exceptions - Buffleheads are tiny, but they are really feisty little ducks!",
"The short answer is evolution. One behavior pattern is rewarded over another in a given environment.\n\nDucks are very hyper aggressive, though. Geese do attack people more than ducks do, but ducks are assholes.\n\nI would like to bring up the fact that ducks rape more than any other animal on Earth. They rape so much, that the female duck has evolved two vaginal paths. They can choose which one they allow the male to access. They even rape the victim of rape in order to regain their own dominance over them... male or female.\n\nThere are observed cases where multiple mallards were vieing for dominance, and another male duck being chain raped for more than 15 mins.\n\nThere was even an Ig Nobel Prize awarded for a research paper on the observation of one duck flying into a window killing itself. The crazy observation was homosexual necrophilic rape.\n\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9710456",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8xfsq1/comment/e23udwm?st=JJF6G7NZ&sh=6cf27b5c",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28556322",
"https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/14.1.249"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.improbable.com/2013/04/01/kees-moeliker-how-a-dead-duck-changed-my-life-2/"
]
] |
||
vfgrx
|
How much explosive would be needed to destroy the moon, and if we used the debris to make rings à la Saturn, how would this affect the tides?
|
Based on [this comment](_URL_0_) and the [video](_URL_1_) therein.
Apart from the effect on the tides, would the ring reform into the moon? How would our satellites be affected? How much darker/brighter would the night be?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vfgrx/how_much_explosive_would_be_needed_to_destroy_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5411zc"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The gravitational binding energy of a spherical object is close to (3/5) GM^2 /R - that's the energy you need to completely overcome gravity and blow the object apart. Plugging in the numbers for the moon gives you about 10^29 J. That's the equivalent to 2 x 10^19 tonnes of TNT. The largest nuclear bomb ever detonated was the Tsar Bomba, which was 50 megatons (equivalent to 5 x 10^7 tonnes of TNT). So you'd need close to 10^12 Tsar Bombas. That is, if each and every single person in the entire world owned one hundred million Tsar Bombas, then that would almost be enough to blow up the moon.\n\nSo... it takes a lot of energy.\n\nAs to what happens next, that depends on how strongly you blow it up. If you use too much energy, the moon would just completely blow apart and never reform. If you use too little energy, the moon will just reform. If you choose just the right amount of energy, the moon won't completely blow apart into space, but the Earth's tidal forces will just be strong enough to prevent it from reforming, and you could end up with a ring of particles.\n\nBecause this ring is basically axisymmetric, you'd not expect any significant tidal forces."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vej0l/could_you_see_saturns_rings_with_your_naked_eye/c53ty3e",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoz5Q2rGQtQ"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
5sgnao
|
how does math describe nature so well ?
|
I'm studying physics at the moment and am astonished at how beautifully interconnected all the equations are and how it all makes sense.
How does math describe physics and all other sciences so well?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sgnao/eli5_how_does_math_describe_nature_so_well/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddew8dm",
"ddewuye",
"ddey6r2",
"ddf22ax",
"ddf6l1r",
"ddg4md5"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
6,
12,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, remember, we designed the math to describe nature. There are tons of theories in mathematical physics that didn't describe natural phenomena all that well, so we discarded them.",
"The subset of Math you are studying, multi-variable calculus, was specifically developed to support physics in pursuit of an explanation of the real world. Lots of other Math, from set theory to calculus of variations to Morse-Bott theory, is just not related to the real world (even though C of V does have some optics implications). Math is a big subject.",
"Math came about and evolved from our attempts to understand the universe. It was not developed independently and then found to describe physical processes. What you are being taught is the end result of centuries of refining the mathematical models of observed phenomena- the efforts of hundreds of mathematicians, all building on what came before. The math was evolved specifically to show the beauty you are seeing now in how the universe operates. Just like a painter mixes colors to match what she or he sees, the mathematician derives formulas to match physical observation. \n \nThey may not be showing you all the false starts and incorrect theories. If this interests you, a couple recommendations: Einstein's own book on relativity is surprisingly accessible. James Gleick's book on Chaos is a fantastic example of how math is evolved to match nature, and it's a great read. \n\n",
"I disagree with most of the other posters. Math was NOT made to understand or represent nature. It is entirely separate. Mathematics is pure logic. There is nothing in nature we could find to contradict any mathematics, nor is there any possible universe where math could be different. Mathematics is the study of implications. If we know X then Y MUST also be true. There is nothing new we learn in terms of the world. Mathematics is usually understood as starting from a set of unprovable assumptions and then deriving what you can from it. Now the history of mathematics is filled with examples of us studying the type of problems we may see in our lives. How much material do I need to construct a fence around my field. How much stone do I need to build a pyramid. So a lot of the things we study are basically the abstractions of these type of problems, but there is nothing that necessarily makes that so.\n\nNow Mathematics is used in science mostly since it is good at showing the implications of structure and our universe has structure. The link to the world is usually grounded in the things which are seen as explaining that structure. Mass and distance are what is important about how an object moves due to gravity. We then know since the world has structure that if we know mass and distance, then we must know the gravity force. It is the same type of things as before. We find the things in nature such that we know some things, then we also MUST know these other things. Math is good at that. In some sense, the world must be predictable and uniform to some extent to even allow things like humans to exist, so predictable and uniform basically means there is structure we can codify in math.",
"This is a serious philosophical issue. Here is Wigner's take on it\n\n_URL_0_",
"In my experience, it doesn't describe Nature that well. Being an engineering student, there are many things that analytical mathematics just cannot do. For example- if you want to know where an orbiting body will be, even for the simplest case of a single gravitating body, a time relation for position is impossible to find. The only way to do this for the two, restricted three, three, or n body problem is repeated iteration, so you get a very accurate approximation, but not the exact answer. Many other things are this way in engineering. Fluid mechanics, turbulent flows, all of these can only be well approximated even though they're a natural process. Coiling honey falling from a spoon? Math can't explain that exactly either!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html"
],
[]
] |
|
2grhn6
|
"At near-light speed, we could travel to other star systems within a human lifetime, but when we arrived, everyone on earth would be long dead." At what speed does this scenario start to be a problem? How fast can we travel through space before years in the ship start to look like decades on earth?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2grhn6/at_nearlight_speed_we_could_travel_to_other_star/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cklukbb",
"cklvfm0",
"cklw392",
"cklywuq",
"cklyxy3",
"cklznva",
"ckm0kjc",
"ckm3mdu",
"ckm8sa8",
"ckmckv7",
"ckmeymx",
"ckmpcfr",
"ckmqk07"
],
"score": [
1382,
116,
9,
6,
6,
4,
3,
3,
12,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It follow the formula for the Lorentz factor, which is 1/sqrt(1-v^(2)/c^(2)). At 86% the speed of light, you age one year for every two years on Earth, at 99% the speed of light you age one year for every seven years on Earth.\n\nedit: I have to go now so stop asking me about warp drives!",
"I thin you're misunderstanding something here, at near light speed earth will see you moving at near light speed, but looking through a window into the spaceships cabin earth would see that time moved very slowly for the travelers. The closest star systems are 4.5 Ly away, the next closest about 6, but after that you end up with hundreds of stars before you get to 20 light years. Going to these places at near light speed you will get to any of these stars in just above 20 years or less, well within undilated human lifespans on earth.",
"Any speed. It's just a matter of degree, and where you would draw a line in the sand as being a problem. Let's say our trip is confined to five years (cabin time). If you traveled at 1 percent of the speed of light, you'd only be able to go 0.025 light years away -- about twenty-five times further than Pluto. Then the difference in time between your clock and those on the ground would only be about 7500 seconds or about 2 hours. If you traveled at 10 percent of the speed of light, you'd be able to get to a place a quarter of a light-year away (about 1/20th of the way to the nearest star). Now the Lorentz factor is about 0.5%, and the difference would be a little over 9 days. If you went at 90% of the speed of light, the Lorentz factor is 2.3, and when you returned to earth almost 14 years would have gone by.",
"Its about the distance travelled, not the speed. People on earth arent going to notice the difference between .99c and .9999999c, but you are. If you go 100 light years, as long as you are going close to the speed of light, it will take about 100 earth years to get there, even though you can make the trip in a arbitrarily short amount of time. As long as you are travelling to some place and not just out and back planet of the apes style, time dilation is not an issue and travelling faster will get you to your destination faster according to both you and everyone else. If you are worried about everyone you love being dead, think of it like this: if it werent for time dilation, you yourself would have died on the trip, so thank time dilation for saving your life!",
"The truth of the matter is that while it may be feasible for us to colonize distant worlds, it won't be feasible for us to travel freely between them until we develop something like space fold technology. We would never see any colonists again, for better or worse.",
"I'd argue that it \"starts to be a problem,\" at any speed.\n\nSuppose a star is ten light years away. If you travel at non-relativistic speeds, it would take longer than your current lifetime to reach it. So you'd either have to go into stasis or be in a generational ship where your ancestors would eventually arrive. But bottom line, regardless of whether you're dead or not, everyone on earth that you knew would be dead before you even got to the star let alone returned to Earth.\nThat would be a problem.\n\nBut suppose the opposite is true. You can travel at the speed of light. Just, you know, for hypothetical sake. Now, to you, you arrive at the star instantaneously. But to those left on Earth, they've aged 10 years. Round trip? Instantaneous to you. 20 years to everyone left behind. \n\n\nSo the simple answer is that unless we have a system of travel which is (near) instantaneous to both you AND observers on Earth - and there isn't one possible based upon what we know of physics - there is no possible speed where traveling to a star doesn't also mean saying good bye to pretty much everyone you knew on Earth. \n",
"I read this as \"How fast do I have to travel before I start to notice the time difference relative to a stationary observer\" \nOr maybe: \"How fast do I have to travel to achieve a difference of 1 day = 10 years on earth?\" \n\nI found this handy calculator online which if it isn't lying, uses the time dilation formula:\n_URL_0_ \n\n_URL_1_ \n\nNow I suppose one's definition of \"Start to become a problem\" is subjective but we'll say twice as fast? \n\n1 day for you in your spaceship = 2 days for an object stationary relative to your velocity at: \n161325.2880798581 Miles per second or: \n0.8660254037844386 the speed of light.\n\n1 year for you in your spaceship = a decade for a stationary object (1 day = 10 days) at: \n 185348.64476910792 Miles per second or: \n 0.99498743710662 the speed of light. \n\n1 day for you in your spaceship = 365 days for a stationary object at: \n 186281.6978716586 Miles per second or: \n 0.9999962469436047 the speed of light.\n\n1 day for you in your spaceship = 3650 days(A decade) for a stationary object at: \n 186282.39000872956 Miles per second or: \n 0.9999999624695057 the speed of light. \n\nI had no idea, and found it interesting that you're basically only going less than 1 more mile per second faster velocity to get a whole decade \"Faster\" in time. \n\nThis equation ignores Gravity. \n",
"I think it's easier to get a grasp on this if you flip it around.\n\nThink this way: the close you get to the speed of light, the slower you age from the point of view of the Earth bound observer.\n\nSo, if a planet is 60 light years away, then as long as the travelers are close to the speed of light, in a little over 60 years from Earth's point of view they'll get there. How young they will be and exactly how much more than 60 years it took will depend on how fast they traveled, but the Earth bound will all be 60+ years older.\n\nThis way instead of asking \"how fast can you travel before this becomes a problem\" you can just ask \"how far away does the destination have to be before this becomes a problem.\"\n\nAnd the answer is pretty simple. If the planet is 100 light years away, you're not going to live to see the travelers arrive. If it's 20 light years away, there's a good chance they'll get there, and if you're young, you might even see the footage after it beams back.",
"The formula for time dilation is:\n\n T = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)\n\nWhere T is the time on the Earth and t is the time on the spaceship.\n\nSolving for the speed, measured in percent of *c*, we get:\n\n v = sqrt(1 - (t/T)^2)\n\nA quick list in percentage of *c*:\n\n Time on space ship equals time on Earth:\n\n 1 day equals 2 days: 86.60254%\n 1 day equals 1 week: 98.97433%\n 1 day equals 1 month: 99.94443%\n 1 day equals 1 year: 99.99963%",
"I find the best way to visualise time dilation is to think of a hypothetical light clock. If you were in the vacuum of space and you got a bar that was 150000km long (approx. 1/2 a light second) with an emitter/receiver on one end and a mirror on the other; light would be emitted, it would travel to the mirror, reflect, and come back to the receiver every second. Now if the bar is pushed to the right, the mirror has moved as the light is emitted, so the burst of light has to travel further than the length of the bar (correctly: [the bar length]^2 + [the distance the mirror travelled]^2 = [the distance light has to travel]^2 ). This is Pythagoras' Theorem, and we know that the hypotenuse is longer than the length of the two sides. So light has to travel a further distance, but at the same speed (c = approx. 3*10^8 m/s). Therefore light takes longer to come back and a 'second' (to an observer) takes longer. But if you were travelling along with the bar, you would see no change as you are in the bar's inertial frame of reference, where the light continues to come back every second.\n*TL;DR : Sorry it's a bit wordy and hard to visualise without illustrations, I'm sure it's a known thought experiment but I don't know. Best to look up other special relativity thought experiments if you want your mind truly blown.",
"If I was moving at near the speed of light in 1nm distances in an alternating direction (so back and forth super fast) would I age more slowly than everyone around me?\n\nSecond question: does the Hubble constant affect the speed of time between two objects? \n\nThird question: why does time only slow for the traveler? Are we not both moving in relation to one another at the same speed?",
"I whipped up a quick spreadsheet of how much time would pass for everyone else if you hopped on a super-fast spaceship.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nNotice in the data and the graph how quickly it spikes near the speed of light. You really need to go a significant percent of the speed of light before significant changes happen.",
"I cant wrap my head around this...if I move from A to B (no matter the speed) wouldnt the same amount of time pass as if I were to stand still? \n\nSo 2 people exist, 1 stand stills, 1 moves from A to B back to A, and you are telling me that depending on the speed of which person 2 travels, they would age at a different rate? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation",
"http://www.1728.org/reltivty.htm?b0=900000000"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SvdZULxciBtcWhVyk9BPgSG0ZeodI8x_kzYLMolxVgc/edit?usp=sharing"
],
[]
] |
||
1dtt53
|
Whether a woman is fertilized after sex or not, where does the semen go?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1dtt53/whether_a_woman_is_fertilized_after_sex_or_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9ttjqf",
"c9ty7b2",
"c9tzyu0"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Since sperm cells don't last very long at warm temperatures, the cell will undergo apoptosis (cell suicide.) ",
"i would hesitate to say that all of it oozes out. some of it will stay there until the vagina expels it during part of its standard discharge cycle\n\nalso, to Cr4nkine... it seems more likely that the cells would die rather than undergo apoptosis. sperm undergo apoptosis after a while in the epidiymis but it seems unlikely that they would do so in the vagina prior to being degraded by the female's endogenous enzymes or simply vaginal pH",
"Sperm cells will all die within roughly 72 hours after ejaculation. You start of with millions. \n• 1. Leak out of vaginal orifice – couple million\n• 2. Destroyed by acidic vagina – couple million\n• 3. Fail to make it through cervix – mucus thinned by estrogen\n• 4. Dispersed in uterine cavity – dispersed by washing machine action\n• 5. Destroyed by phagocytes in uterus\n• 6. Reach the uterine tubes – thousands\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1qtioy
|
How could Lewis and Clark travel all the way out to Oregon when Louisiana Purchase only included as far as Montana?
|
How could they go as far as WA or OR when Louisiana Purchase didn't include those areas? Was it simply because no one control those areas and they just kept on going with interference? If that were the case, why didn't they start heading south and explore all the rest of North America, like Nevada or California? Thanks for answering.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qtioy/how_could_lewis_and_clark_travel_all_the_way_out/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdgcgft",
"cdge700",
"cdgibhr",
"cdglw6j"
],
"score": [
25,
11,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"One of the greatest hopes of the period was that it would be possible to find a waterway that was navigable from the Atlantic (or at least from the Gulf of Mexico) to the Pacific. [Lewis and Clark](_URL_0_) followed the Missouri through the Louisiana Purchase and then hoped that they could find the nearest navigable river - which they did, namely the Columbia. \n\nIn their journey, they explored and documented the greatest length of the Purchase, remaining in US-owned territory. There was always an understanding that if they reached the Pacific, they would leave the Purchase and cross land that was not properly belonging to the US. Because the Missouri River pointed the way, the logical path crossing to the west was at one of the sources of the Missouri.\n\nThe alternative of crossing the Great Basin (Nevada didn't exist at the time) and then to Alta California would have documented the Great Basin, but that was not part of the objective of seeing where the Missouri pointed. And then, while crossing Alta California would have been legally and/or politically possible, but they would have found an area that was under the control of Spain. Assuming they weren't met with hostility, they would have only found what was relatively well known.",
"Spain actually sent out a a couple of parties to intercept them, but they were unable to locate the Corps. \n\nAs for exploring the Southwest, they had specific orders from President Jefferson about the mission of the expedition. They made a risky decision on the return trip to explore an area northward along the Marias River to try to ascertain just how far north the Louisiana Purchase extended.",
"My understanding, drawn from many books and research (as a hobby, I'm not a real historian), is that there were several factors involved in the US claim to the Pacific Northwest (PNW)—understood as the region between Spanish California and Russian Alaska.\n\nOne was that a broad interpretation of the Louisiana Purchase held that it included the PNW—although I think this was a rather weak claim and not taken very seriously by the other powers interested in the PNW (Spain, Britain, Russia). And I might be wrong about this, I can't remember where I've read about it.\n\nSecond and more important was the activity of American \"maritime fur traders\" on the PNW coast—especially Robert Gray's discovery and exploration of the mouth of the Columbia River in 1792. In later years, when the region was \"jointly held\" by the US and Britain, US arguments frequently cited Robert Gray and Lewis and Clark. Although Gray barely explored the river beyond its mouth the US claimed that his discovery gave the US a claim to the river's entire drainage basin—or at least gave the US the right to further explore the river (ie, sending Lewis and Clark). Gray's discovery of the Columbia was probably the most important factor in Jefferson's justification of sending Lewis and Clark beyond the Louisiana Purchase to that river and to the Pacific (Jefferson might have sent them there anyway, with other, weaker justifications). Of course Britain contested the value of Gray's discovery, pointing to Vancouver's much more thorough exploration of the lower Columbia within a year of Gray's (clear to the Columbia Gorge; Lewis and Clark relied on Vancouver's maps and reports once they reached the lower Columbia). Then again, Vancouver undermined the British position somewhat by affirming Gray's naming of the river, Columbia, and generally honoring Gray as the river's discoverer (Vancouver himself had tried, and failed to find it, concluding it didn't exist, shortly before Gray did find it).\n\nA third factor was the presence of many American maritime fur traders on the PNW coast. The Spanish and British had been the first to roughly explore the coast in the late 1770s. The Russians were establishing themselves in Alaska and seemed posed to extend southward. Spain had claimed the entire coast, including Alaska, for centuries, but had not explored any of it until the late 18th century, and then did so mostly in response to Russian expansion. When Cook's crew reached Canton, China (after Cook himself was killed in Hawaii), they discovered that the sea otter furs they had almost accidentally acquired on the PNW coast were highly valued and made a tremendous profit. It turned out that PNW furs sold in China made a lot of money and soon there were many fur trading ships on the PNW coast. British traders pioneered the system but American traders soon outnumbered them and came to dominate the coast by the time of Lewis and Clark. At first Spain tried to prevent other nations from visiting the PNW coast, which had been claimed by Spain for centuries. Things blew up in 1789 at Nootka Sound on Vancouver Island, almost leading to war between Spain and Britain. The Nootka Conventions resolved the conflict, and although they were agreements between Spain and Britain they effectively opened the PNW between Spanish California and Russian Alaska to all nations, and strengthened the notion that territorial claims had to be backed up by active presence in a region. Around 1800 British and American traders were about equally active on the PNW coast (with Russia a distant third). After about 1810 the Americans dominated and soon completely controlled the coast trade (until the Hudson's Bay Company managed to take it over in the 1830s). In short, all this maritime fur trading activity gave the US a compelling *interest* in the region and a vague legal claim.\n\nThe legal claim was greatly strengthened by the Lewis and Clark Expedition, which was likely one of the main reasons for sending the expedition in the first place—together with Robert Gray's discovery of the Columbia River it gave the US the ability to argue with Britain with at least the pretense of a real, legal claim.\n\nThe US case for \"Oregon\" was further strengthened in 1819 when Spain ceded to the US all its claims north of California, whatever they were worth—the US argued they were worth a lot, of course, while Britain argued they were basically worthless. Still, during the Oregon dispute with Britain the US arguments were based most firmly on 1) Robert Gray, 2) Lewis and Clark, and 3) acquisition of Spanish claims.",
"One of the reasons Jefferson sent the Lewis and Clark expedition was to strengthen US claims to the Oregon Country. \n\nIn 1800, the Oregon Country was claimed by Spain, Britain, Russia and the USA. The US claims were based on Robert Grey’s discovery of the Columbia River in 1792. In 1802 Jefferson read Alexander Mackenzie’s “Voyages from Montreal” (published in 1801) which was his account of the first overland exploration into the Oregon Country. Jefferson thought that the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804 would re-enforce American claims. Jefferson was right.\n\nSo, Lewis and Clark were exploring West of the Louisiana Purchase into lands which were claimed by the United States, but also claimed by other powers.\n\nIn 1818, the USA negotiated the “Anglo-American Convention of 1818” which fixed the 49th parallel as the boundary between the US and British North America West to the Rocky Mountains. Beyond the mountains, the Convention agreed to “joint occupancy” of the Oregon Country.\n\nIn 1819, in the “Adams-Onis Treaty”, Spain relinquished to the USA all rights claimed on the Pacific coast North of the 42nd parallel.\n\nIn the 1820s, Russia gave up its claims to territories South of 54degrees 40 minutes, and East of the 141st meridian to the USA (1825) and Britain (1826).\n\nIn the “Great Migration of 1843” American settlers first emigrated by wagon train over the Oregon Trail to the Oregon country. In the Presidential elections of 1844, James Polk’s opponents coined the phrase “54, 40 or fight” (meaning that the US should go to war if Britain did not relinquish the whole of the Oregon Territory – Polk was seen as keen on admitting Texas (as a slave state) to the Union, but not so keen on Oregon (which would be free soil)).\n\nThe British made a counter offer that the US could have all of the Oregon territory south of the Columbia river and Britain would keep everything north.\n\nIn 1846, the US and Britain agreed the compromise “Oregon Treaty” which extended the existing boundary they had negotiated for the Louisiana Purchase of the 49th parallel to the Pacific Ocean, but gave Britain all of Vancouver Island.\n\nSources:\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lewisandclark/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/oregon-territoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Country"
]
] |
|
3ixuy5
|
the situation in israël and palestina.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ixuy5/eli5_the_situation_in_israël_and_palestina/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cukmv2g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" Please remember to search before posting."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
17stih
|
how do residential solar panels 'give back' to the grid?
|
Is there a transducktor involved? I thought power only flowed in one direction and to push it in another direction (reverse) would kill you. How much power could you actually be contributing? Cost effective?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17stih/eli5_how_do_residential_solar_panels_give_back_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c88j7y7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > How much power could you actually be contributing?\n\nDepends on a lot of factors: Where in the world is the house? Is it summer or winter (summers have more hours of sunshine)? Are there a lot of clouds?\n\nA very good soar panel has a power of 16.22 W/ft^2 (175 W/m^2) *peak*. This means if *a lot* of sun shines on the panel, no clouds. Typically you will also lose some power during the conversion from the panel voltage to the grid (my estimate is 10-20% loss).\n\n > Cost effective?\n\nIn my country (Germany), the government decided to make a law, where energy companies are *required* to buy solar power from people at a certain (quite high) rate. This means that you can calculate how much money you will make over the years: usually you will break even after about 15 years (you have to invest a lot of money up front, usually from a loan). After that there are at least 5 years where the installation gives you a real profit. Manufacturers give you a warranty for 20 years, so it might very well be that the panels last longer than those 20 years, this will mean even more profit.\n\nOverall it is an okay long term investment, but only because the price of solar power is guaranteed by law."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
17hsfq
|
How does H.265 compress video better than H.264?
|
Since I'm guessing it is an improvement of some piece of code or hardware, what exactly makes H.265 so much better than H.264?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/17hsfq/how_does_h265_compress_video_better_than_h264/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c85m8zh"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The most simplistic explanation is that video encoding is always a trade-off between processing power versus file size. The more processing power you can throw at encoding/decoding, the smaller you can get the file size. As computers become more powerful, that can be leveraged to reduce the bandwidth of the file.\n\nThe H.265 standard has a bunch of features which take advantage of using more processing power. The wikipedia article _URL_0_ explains them. Here are some of the features the best I can explain them more clearly:\n\nWhen a video is encoded, the whole frame isn't encoded at once, its divided into a grid, and changes from one frame to the next are predicted within subblocks. H.265 allows for larger blocks to be in this grid, and allows for the size of the blocks to adapt depending on where the motion is. For example, a video of ball being thrown against a static background would use small blocks, where as a camera panning against a scenic background may use large blocks. This also allows for the standard to make better use of parallel processing.\n\nThe algorithm to predict motion is being forced to CABAC, where as h.264 had the choice between CABAC and CALVC, the latter was less efficient.\n\nThe way video is encoded is having a reference frame every so oftened (ie a frame that is the actual picture), with many frames that are actually just predictions of what the video SHOULD be in-between. These frames are predicted by looking at the difference between reference frames. But it gets more complicated as there are frames that are predicted by only looking forward, others that are predicted by looking both directions, etc. The process of ordering these frames and the structure has been improved.\n\nThese are the only aspects that I feel qualified enough to speak on. There are other innovations that are important beyond compression in h.265. This includes the inclusion of support for resolutions beyond 1080p for the next gen of HDTVs, as well as furthering the support for SVC (scalable video coding), which are videos that can have multiple bitrates in a file. This is a huge innovation, because it means you can watch the same video without buffering as your processing power / connection speed changes. Rather than buffering the file if you can't load enough video to watch in real time, it simply drops the resolution / quality / frame rate of the video.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding"
]
] |
|
us32u
|
Can a two dimensional object have mass?
|
Pardon my poor vernacular, but I am still in low level physics and I don't really know how to even pose the question I came across while watching Into the Wormhole. Anyway, does what dimension an object exists in have anything to do with its mass? ALSO, can objects of different dimensions beyond or below [X,Y,Z] scales have mass?
OR are the 2 dimensions below ( a line as the first, and a plane as the second) only "theoretical" or "imaginary"? The ones above as well?
Sorry if I couldn't articulate this more efficiently.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/us32u/can_a_two_dimensional_object_have_mass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4y99p9",
"c4ya23c"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Well, electrons and other elementary particles have no dimensions and have mass.\n\nBut yes, these are all in fact just mathematical constructs in attempt to describe what is happening.",
"It depends on what you mean by object. We live in 3 spatial dimensions, so things that we're familiar with are 3-dimensional.\n\nHowever, things that matter is made out of (electrons, quarks, etc) are, as far as we can tell, point particles. These point particles are 0-dimensional objects, as they don't have a size, and they do have mass. So theoretically, you could construct a technically 2-dimensional object out of points, and it would have mass.\n\nThe fact is that mass in the universe is composed of 0 dimensional objects occupying a 3D space. There are no true lines or planes, because everything is made out of discrete points. And although the actual point particles get fuzzy as you zoom in (due to quantum uncertainty), as far as we can tell they don't have any inherent size."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
56zdy0
|
What is the simplest venom used by an organism?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/56zdy0/what_is_the_simplest_venom_used_by_an_organism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8o6716"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Im going to answer based on the assumption that you specifically want formation about venom, and not generally poisons.\n\nOff hand most venoms I can think of are mixtures of agents. The primary agent is usually a short protein, more accurately described as a polypeptide of around 20-40 amino acids like iberiotoxin, or charibdotoxin. \n\nThere are probably others but the scorpion, spider and insect venoms I'm aware of are based on protein agents"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4gywkh
|
Was Hitler in any way, at any point, a Zionist?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4gywkh/was_hitler_in_any_way_at_any_point_a_zionist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2lxvy3"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Hi. This question was answered [here](_URL_0_).\n\nThe answer is totally and unequivocally no. Being Zionist means supporting the creation of a Jewish state, and Hitler never supported it. The Nazis at one point signed an agreement that deported Jews to Mandatory Palestine, signing the agreement with Zionist groups, but this was because the Nazis wanted Jews gone, not because they supported Zionism. Further deportations to the area were ruled out precisely because Zionism was not supported by the Nazis. The Nazis opposed further deportations, in short, because they **didn't want** a Jewish state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/420wni/why_didnt_the_nazis_just_deport_the_jews_back_to/cz6semh"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.